Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 46, Number 21, May 31, 2019

- Cover

- Masthead

- EDITORIAL Trump Escalates Fight Against British War Party by Harley Schlanger

- PDF edition Table of Contents — Volume 46, Number 21, May 31, 2019

- I. The Beginning of a New Era

- ZEPP-LAROUCHE IN CHINA The Highest Ideal of Mankind Is the Potential of the Future by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

- CONFERENCE OF ALL ASIAN NATIONS Peace and Development Remain the Call of Our Times

- THE BRITISH SEEK WAR President Trump Orders Declassification: What Did the Queen Know and When Did She Know It? by Barbara Boyd

- NUNES’ LETTER What Role May UK Officials Have Played in Spreading False Allegations?

- II. The LaRouche Revolution

- Popular Misconceptions About Science Science Is Not ‘Statistics’ by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (September 15, 1997)

- LAROUCHE PAC CLASS Lyndon LaRouche’s Unique Contribution To the Science of Universal History by William F. Wertz, Jr.

Break the British Imperial Grip

Editor-in-Chief and Founder:

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Editorial Board: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. , Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Robert Ingraham, Tony Papert, Gerald Rose, Dennis Small, William Wertz

Co-Editors: Robert Ingraham, Tony Papert

Technology: Marsha Freeman

Transcriptions: Katherine Notley

Ebooks: Richard Burden

Graphics: Alan Yue

Photos: Stuart Lewis

Circulation Manager: Stanley Ezrol

INTELLIGENCE DIRECTORS

Economics: Marcia Merry Baker, Paul Gallagher

History: Anton Chaitkin

Ibero-America: Dennis Small

United States: Debra Freeman

INTERNATIONAL BUREAUS

Berlin: Rainer Apel

Copenhagen: Tom Gillesberg

Lima: Sara Madueño

Melbourne: Robert Barwick

Mexico City: Gerardo Castilleja Chávez

New Delhi: Ramtanu Maitra

Paris: Christine Bierre

Stockholm: Ulf Sandmark

United Nations, N.Y.C.: Leni Rubinstein

Washington, D.C.: William Jones

Wiesbaden: Göran Haglund

ON THE WEB

e-mail: eirns@larouchepub.com

www.larouchepub.com

www.executiveintelligencereview.com

www.larouchepub.com/eiw

Webmaster: John Sigerson

Assistant Webmaster: George Hollis

Editor, Arabic-language edition: Hussein Askary

EIR (ISSN 0273-6314) is published weekly

(50 issues), by EIR News Service, Inc.,

P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C. 20041-0390.

(571) 293-0935

European Headquarters: E.I.R. GmbH, Postfach Bahnstrasse 9a, D-65205, Wiesbaden, Germany

Tel: 49-611-73650

Homepage: http://www.eir.de

e-mail: info@eir.de

Director: Georg Neudecker

Montreal, Canada: 514-461-1557

eir@eircanada.ca

Denmark: EIR - Danmark, Sankt Knuds Vej 11, basement left, DK-1903 Frederiksberg, Denmark. Tel.: +45 35 43 60 40, Fax: +45 35 43 87 57. e-mail: eirdk@hotmail.com.

Mexico City: EIR, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz 242-2

Col. Agricultura C.P. 11360

Delegación M. Hidalgo, México D.F.

Tel. (5525) 5318-2301

eirmexico@gmail.com

Copyright: ©2019 EIR News Service. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission strictly prohibited.

Canada Post Publication Sales Agreement #40683579

Postmaster: Send all address changes to EIR, P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C. 20041-0390.

Signed articles in EIR represent the views of the authors, and not necessarily those of the Editorial Board.

EDITORIAL

Trump Escalates Fight

Against British War Party

by Harley Schlanger

May 24—In an interview with Fox-TV News on May 20, U.S. President Donald Trump dropped another in a recent series of bombshells, when he described those pushing for war with Iran as part of a “Military Industrial Complex,” run by people who “like war.” Speaking of the opposition to his orders to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, first announced in April 2018, he said “if it was up to them, they’d bring thousands of soldiers in . . . They never want to leave. They always want to fight.”

In raising the specific issue of the Military Industrial Complex, a term historically linked to the warning by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961, Trump has once again defined that the issue before us today is one of war or peace, and he has restated his intention, as he has done since the 2016 presidential campaign, to end the 16 years-long war policies of the preceding George W. Bush and Barack Obama presidencies.

What President Trump is doing is both incredibly courageous and unprecedented, and it should be looked at within the context of both his May 23 announcement that he has given Attorney General William Barr full authority to declassify documents concerning the spying on the Trump Campaign,[fn_1] and his recent multiple references to British intelligence involvement in the “get Trump” operations. President Trump is escalating, and he is acting to crush the treason faction in Washington, DC—and to foil their efforts to provoke another war.

The Fox Interview

During the May 20 interview, President Trump was asked by Steve Hilton, the Fox interviewer, if he could reassure viewers that he is “not looking for some conflict in Iran.” Trump reminded Hilton that he is the one who has repeatedly objected to the wars that have gone on for years, especially in the Middle East, wars that have been supported by both parties,—the “endless wars,” which he criticized both during his campaign for President and since becoming President. As an example of his intent, Trump stated that after defeating the ISIS Caliphate in Syria, he decided “to bring our troops back home.” The response to that decision, he added, was that the “place went crazy. You have people here in Washington; they never want to leave.”

An example of that craziness was a non-binding Senate resolution against the withdrawal of U.S. forces. It passed overwhelmingly, by a 70-26 vote, with both Democrats and Republicans voting to defy the President, pushed jointly by Republican Majority leader Mitch McConnell and Democratic Party leader Chuck Schumer. Continued resistance to his decision has resulted in a slowdown of the troop withdrawal, as 2,000 troops remain in Syria and 5,000 in Iraq.

The President’s resistance to the war drive can also be seen in his response to a May 22 announcement that the Pentagon has drafted a plan to deploy as many as ten thousand additional U.S. troops to the Middle East, “to boost U.S. defenses against Iranian threats.” Asked on May 23 about the possibility of more troops being sent to the Mideast, Trump simply replied, “I don’t think we’re going to need them.”

The British Hand

As in the case of Russiagate, in the current attempts to provoke a crisis with Iran we see once again the hand of the British. While the unhinged National Security Adviser John Bolton continues to rant about “new threats” from Iran, which allegedly have been discovered by U.S. and allied intelligence, it is the duplicitous British Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, who proclaimed that the UK fully holds “the same assessment of the heightened threat posed by Iran.”

Given the evidence that has come to light in Russiagate of the penetration of U.S. intelligence agencies by British operations, a legitimate question is immediately posed as to whether the alleged evidence of new “Iranian threats” does not all originate with British intelligence, and has simply been laundered through various agencies in Washington? The British historically specialize in disinformation, outright lies, terrorist deployments and false flag ops to provoke wars in the region. Both the Sun and the Express reported today the deployment to the Persian Gulf of the British Special Boat Service, special forces which have been deployed to “protect against Iranian attacks on merchant ships.”

Given the stakes we are dealing with, it is urgent to recall that the “intelligence” that led to the 2003 disastrous war against Iraq also came from the British,—specifically from Sir Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6. Dearlove released a dossier which falsely asserted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, a document cited by Bush administration officials to justify the invasion. This is the same Dearlove who repeatedly has vouched for the validity of the “Steele Dossier,” fabricated by one of his boys, Christopher Steele,—the very dossier laundered to Brennan, Clapper and Comey to launch the drive to remove Trump from office.

Steele’s dossier, and its use in several filings for surveillance warrants in the FISA Court, is currently under scrutiny by Attorney General William Barr and his team of investigators. This investigation, if carried through, will show that the only “spying” against Americans which took place during the 2016 campaign was instigated by British intelligence, and that all of the allegations of Russian hacking are outright lies.

In the case of Iran, to understand anything one has to recognize that Iran has been targeted by the British directly in the name of “geopolitics.” Documents released in 2013 on the overthrow of Iran’s elected President Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953, demonstrate how the U.S. acted under British direction to carry out the regime change. The CIA operation, code named TPAJAX, was coordinated with MI6 and its Operation Boot. One of the declassified documents reports that Mosaddegh “found the British evil,” and that “he and millions of Iranians believed that for centuries Britain had manipulated their country for British ends.” The current war drive against Iran is being coordinated by the same geopolitical networks centered in London that were identified by Mosaddegh more than 60 years ago.

Wikimedia Commons

President Dwight D. Eisenhower

---------------------------------------------

What is the Military Industrial Complex?

The naming by President Trump of the Military Industrial Complex as a continuing force in pushing for war, echoes the famous Farewell Address of U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower, delivered on January 17, 1961. While speaking of the necessity for large expenditures for national defense as the Cold War dominated American strategic concerns, Eisenhower sternly warned against the power that was being accrued in the name of defending the American people:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Eisenhower’s warning of the threat emanating from the Military Industrial Complex was confirmed by events in subsequent years. His successor, John Kennedy, was confronted, immediately upon his inauguration, by the Bay of Pigs crisis, in which the intelligence network of CIA Director Allen Dulles—a long-time collaborator with the highest levels of British intelligence, going back to his World War II work in protecting Nazis in Switzerland—and his London allies, worked together with U.S. military utopians to launch an invasion of Cuba. Though Kennedy blocked them from following through with their scheme, the event set in motion an escalation of Cold War confrontation which resulted, in 1962, in a nuclear showdown with the Soviet Union in the Cuban missile crisis. In both cases, Kennedy’s leadership overcame the treacherous operations run by these corrupted military intelligence networks and thwarted British geopolitical designs.

In November 1963, Kennedy’s life ended in Dallas, Texas, in a murder that has been covered up to this day. Less than a year later, the faked or staged attacks in the Gulf of Tonkin became the pretext for the deployment of more than half a million U.S. troops to Vietnam. The United States had begun to destroy itself in a no-win war arranged by Britain—as historian Derek Leebaert proves anew in his 2018 book, Grand Improvisation: America Confronts the British Superpower, 1945-1957.

Ending Imperial Warfare

Dwight Eisenhower’s fight, John Kennedy’s fight, and now Donald Trump’s fight has been to break the power of the war party, a party that has operated in lockstep with the British Empire since the Truman presidency. Many Americans are very confused as to such strategic matters. They fail to see who it is that has been leading us into one bloody war after another. Many Democrats hysterically deny the overwhelming evidence that Hillary Clinton was the candidate for the war party, and some Trump supporters still identify the “deep state” or “liberals” as being behind the targeting of President Trump.

The recent comments by Trump, identifying the British role in initiating the Russiagate coup attempt against his presidency, and now his attack on the Military Industrial Complex, threaten a situation in which “all the trees in the forest could fall.” The drive to remove Trump from office and the drive for war are now being openly identified as one operation, and the role of British intelligence is in the rifle sights of the Attorney General.

The vilification of America’s most profound intellectual, Lyndon LaRouche, was run by these same British networks and their U.S. operatives in both parties, precisely because he identified the core perversion of the British, which was their promotion of an anti-human divide-and-conquer geopolitical doctrine to keep mankind engaged in perpetual wars, usually over “scarce resources”—scarce only because the same British networks destroyed the scientific and economic method required for mankind to advance.

By identifying the Military Industrial Complex as the source of the war danger, President Trump has placed in the hands of the American people the means to defeat them. As Eisenhower stated that “Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry” has the power to protect against the threats to mankind from the evil of the Military Industrial Complex, Trump today is calling on citizens to back the fight against them. Making American citizens “alert and knowledgeable” was the life’s work of Lyndon LaRouche. It is time to achieve the goal which he defined, to free the world from that beast known as the British Empire.

[fn_1]. See article, “President Trump Orders Declassification: What Did the Queen Know and When Did She Know It?” by Barbara Boyd, in this issue of EIR. [back to text for fn_1]

EIR Contents

www.larouchepub.com — Volume 46, Number 21, May 31, 2019

Cover This Week

Christoph Mohs

Helga Zepp-LaRouche with other participants at the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations, held in Beijing, May 15-16.

---------------------------------------------

BREAK THE BRITISH IMPERIAL GRIP

2 EDITORIAL

Trump Escalates Fight Against British War Party

by Harley Schlanger

I. THE BEGINNING OF A NEW ERA

6 ZEPP-LAROUCHE IN CHINA

The Highest Ideal of Mankind

Is the Potential of the Future

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

12 BEIJING CONSENSUS

The 2019 Beijing Consensus of the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations

14 THE BRITISH SEEK WAR

President Trump Orders Declassification: What Did the Queen Know and

When Did She Know It?

by Barbara Boyd

19 NUNES’ LETTER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP

What Role May UK Officials Have Played in Spreading False Allegations?

II. THE LAROUCHE REVOLUTION

20 POPULAR MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT SCIENCE

Science Is Not ‘Statistics’

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

September 15, 1997

42 LAROUCHE PAC CLASS

Lyndon LaRouche’s Unique Contribution to the Science of Universal History

by William F. Wertz, Jr.

The Jan. 27, 1989 Jailing of Lyndon LaRouche

Defined an Era, Which Now Must End

Sign the Petition to Exonerate LaRouche at lpac.co/exonerate

I. The Beginning of a New Era

ZEPP-LAROUCHE IN CHINA

The Highest Ideal of Mankind Is

the Potential of the Future

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

May 25—Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche has just returned from a 10-day visit to China, including public presentations and extensive private meetings, which she reported went exceptionally well.

The trip began with her participation in the conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations, held May 15-16 in Beijing, where President Xi Jinping delivered the keynote. Zepp-LaRouche submitted the following paper to the conference and a delivered a 10-minute speech on the same theme. The paper has already been published as part of the Conference proceedings.

She also had daily, high-level meetings with representatives of many top institutions that she has been in touch with since the 1990s. She reports that these occurred at a moment of very grave tension between China and the United States—because of the collapse of the trade talks, the Huawei affair, and other issues—which made her presence all the more important. Many people look to the LaRouche movement for solutions to these problems, she reported.

Zepp-LaRouche also delivered a speech at the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies of Renmin University in Beijing, and granted a number of press and TV interviews.

In addition to Beijing, Zepp-LaRouche visited Nanjing, where she met with the publisher of the Chinese-language edition of the first volume of The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge, where she learned that the publisher had just released a second printing. They consider it one of the most important books of their publishing house. They also will be publishing a translation of the new report, The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge, Vol. II.

It is the characteristic of turning points in history that the majority of people have no concept of what is occurring. Only those visionaries who have a clear idea of the positive potential of the future are able to intervene in the process at moments of decision, to avert potential catastrophes, and instead usher in a new epoch of humanity. We find ourselves in such a phase change: the old world order, as it developed after World War II and especially after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, is in a process of dissolution, but what the new order will look like is by no means decided yet. We are in a period when even international law seems to be overridden, as at the moment neither the UN nor any other institution seems to be able to enforce it.

But it is undeniable that the pendulum that favored Western civilization over recent centuries—though for thousands of years Asia had occupied an outstanding and even leading place in universal history—has long been swinging back. This is clearly supported by the demographic development of Asia, completely new strategic interventions such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and clear objectives, such as the concept “Made in China 2025” or the outlook that President Xi Jinping has set for China by 2050.

Tremendous opportunities for Asia arise from this, and perhaps along with them a completely new form of responsibility, which should ignite the inspiration to work out concepts about how to advance humanity as a whole. President Xi Jinping obviously has this very approach in mind when he speaks of the “Community of a Shared Future of Mankind.” We are now experiencing a precious moment, for never before in history has the conscious design of a new epoch, with the idea of a unified humanity as a higher idea, been so clearly defined as a task.

If we want to create a more human order, it must be built on the best concepts that have been produced by various cultures. Those concepts must, so to speak, have an ontological character, because nothing in them can be accidental or of merely contemporary character, if they are to determine the Dharma—the moral code—which the spiritual leaders, and with them Asian societies, are to follow in this new chapter of universal history.

It is also obvious that the impetus for defining this “righteous way” must come from the ancient traditions of Asia, such as Confucianism, Buddhism or Jainism, which are clearly linked to a commitment to lifelong self-cultivation and moral refinement of mankind. Though the West had the same claim in its Classical and Renaissance periods of humanism, the idea of the ethical improvement of man as a purpose in life is almost the opposite of the Western liberal model, where any priority of moral requirements or the superiority of one philosophy over another are emphatically rejected.

The Principles of the New Paradigm

How then must the principles be designed, so that the new paradigm of a coming Community of Mankind is on such secure foundations that the requirements of modern natural science as well as those of a new system of international relations can be satisfied?

This question must be answered on different levels. A good starting point is The Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, or Panchsheel, as laid down for the first time in a formal way in the Trade and Transport Agreement between the Tibetan Region of China and India on April 29, 1954. The preamble states that the two governments have agreed on the following principles: 1. Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, 2. Mutual non-aggression, 3. Mutual non-interference, 4. Equality and mutual benefit, and 5. Peaceful co-existence.

Delegates at the Asian-African Conference in Bandung, Indonesia, April 1955.

---------------------------------------------

The first conference of independent Asian and African states in Bandung [Indonesia] in 1955, led by Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai and Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, expanded the Five Principles into the Ten Principles of Bandung. The same principles were underlined as a core element of international law at the 1961 Non-Aligned Conference in Belgrade [Yugoslavia]. With the BRI, China has defined for the first time the concept of this relationship between nations as the basis of a global reorganization which is open to all nations. President Xi emphasized in his keynote speech at the first Belt and Road Forum in May 2017:

We are ready to share the experience of development with other countries. We have no intention to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, export our own social system or model of development, or impose our will on others.

These principles of peaceful coexistence have deep roots in several Asian cultures. Some of these concepts are philosophical in nature, others are part of theological considerations. This paper is about the identification of the approaches that have advanced humanity and are relevant to the future understanding among peoples. This is also the approach adopted by President Xi on his overseas visits, as he emphasized in a speech in New Delhi to the Indian elite in 2014:

Even in ancient times, people in China came to the realization that a belligerent state, great as it may be, ultimately fails. Peace is paramount. Harmony without uniformity and universal peace must be achieved. The Chinese concepts of “universal peace” and “universal love” are very similar to the Indian concepts of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” (the world as a family) and “ahimsa” (do not inflict injury).

Ancient Scriptures of India

Thus, in the ancient scriptures of India, the Vedic texts, the Upanishads, and the classical Sanskrit literature, there are many important concepts that have both a religious and a practical political significance. They include, for example, the principle of ahimsa mentioned by Xi, the respect for all other creatures—not only the renunciation of any physical violence, but also of hurting the other in any way, either verbally or spiritually. Ahimsa is also a method of war prevention and conflict resolution, even for complex challenges in the real world.

The collections of the Rigveda are the oldest surviving complete literary work, and have been handed down orally for centuries with the help of sophisticated mnemonics. In the Rigveda there are fundamental thoughts on the cosmic order, which ultimately also provide the guideline for human action on earth.

In the Upanishads there are five principles that reflect the same basic orientation. The most basic concept is that of the all-embracing Brahman. Ishavasyam idam sarvam yat kincha jagatvam jagat—Everything that exists, wherever it exists, is permeated by the same divine power. This idea is found in a similar form in Gottfried Leibniz’s idea of the Monad, where within every Monad the entire lawfulness of the universe is contained.

The second principle is that the Brahman, the creative principle whose expression is the entire realized world, is in every individual consciousness, the Atman. Atman is the reflection of this all-embracing Brahman. It is the individual consciousness, but it is not fundamentally separate from Brahman. Ishwarah sarvabhutanam hrddese tisthati—the Lord dwells in the heart of every individual. The relationship between Atman and Brahman is the core around which the whole Vedic doctrine revolves. In the philosophy of Nicholas of Cusa, this corresponds to the affinity of the macrocosm and the microcosm, which makes it possible for an intangible force—an idea created by creative reason—to bring about a further development of the physical universe.

A third Vedic principle is that because of their common spirituality, all people are members of a single family. The Upanishads speak of humanity as amritasya putra, “Children of Immortality.”

The fourth concept the Upanishads present is the idea of the consubstantiality of all religions, all spiritual paths. Ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti—“The truth is one, the sage calls it by many names.”

Nicholas of Cusa

---------------------------------------------

A Universal Idea

This idea corresponds to the Sanatana Dharma, the single religion which stands above all religions, an idea also expressed by Nicholas of Cusa in his Platonic dialogue De Pace Fidei (On the Peace of Faith), which he wrote immediately following the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and the associated bloody conflicts. In Cusa’s dialogue, representatives of various religions and nations turn to God for help, because all of them are fighting wars against and killing each other in His name. God instructs them that they are all also philosophers in their respective nations and religions—beyond all religious traditions and teachings of the different prophets—and therefore can understand that above religion there is one God, and above different traditions, one truth.

public domain

Swami Vivekananda

---------------------------------------------

Incidentally, the Hindu monk Swami Vivekananda cited the same argument in his famous speech before the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago on September 11, 1893: The followers of different religions have argued and fought each other purely because their point of view is too narrow, and they don’t grasp that the highest Being is infinite.

A fifth Vedic concept is that of the welfare of all creatures. Bahujana sukhaya bahujana hitaya cha—the Hindu philosophy seeks “the good of all people and all forms of life on this planet.” The affinity to the Confucian ideas of harmonious development of all is evident, as Confucius says explicitly: “They who have success should help others to succeed.” Naturally, this is the idea at the basis of the BRI and the conception of “win-win cooperation” among various nations.

CC

Japan’s new Emperor Naruhito giving his first public speech in Tokyo on May 4, 2019. Beside him is his wife, Empress Masako.

---------------------------------------------

The Confucian philosophy also gives a name to the new era which is to begin with the new Japanese Emperor Naruhito: Reiwa, which literally means “pursuing harmony.” Japanese commentators emphasize that this term reaches back to the famous classical poetry anthology, The Manyoshu, though as the scholar Wang Peng points out, the term ling-he was used by the ancient Chinese emperors as the name for their reign, just as in present day China there are best wishes for peace and harmony.

Sri Aurobindo

---------------------------------------------

The idea of a harmonious development of all as the basis for a world peace order is thus laid out in several Asian cultures, and stands in direct contradiction to the idea that relationships among nations constitute a zero-sum game. However, its realization in practice obviously requires a new stage of development in the evolution of mankind, the Age of the Spiritual Man, as Sri Aurobindo has expressed it, or the increasing dominance of the Noösphere over the Biosphere, in which Vladimir Vernadsky saw a trajectory laid out by the natural law of the universe.

Vernadsky

The universe has an inherent lawfulness which advances it to higher stages of development. Vernadsky saw the creative reason of mankind as an essential component of that universe, as a geological power, which has been qualitatively advancing this higher development since the existence of human evolution. In the science of physical economy, Lyndon LaRouche delivered the proof of the absolute efficiency of human creativity, which distinguishes man from all known living creatures, with his concept of Potential Relative Population Density.

Yet this anti-entropic higher development is neither linear, nor the automatic result of objective processes—as in the variations found in historical or dialectical materialism, for instance—as, along with the objective effect of newly discovered physical principles in production processes, now a substantial component of this process has become the subjective intellectual and moral higher development of man.

In meeting the task of consciously shaping a new paradigm for humanity stated at the beginning of this paper, it is certainly an enormous advantage for Chinese and other Asian cultures that, thanks to the philosophy of Confucius, the development of a moral character has been the most important goal of education in broad areas of Asia. Despite the considerable hype about the digitalization of the economy and the role of artificial intelligence in future economic platforms, it will always be the moral qualities of human beings that will determine whether the new technologies are deployed for the benefit of mankind, or for evil purposes.

Thus, of first-rank strategic importance is the letter written several months ago by Xi Jinping to eight professors of the Chinese Academy of Fine Arts, wherein he emphasized the extraordinary importance of aesthetic education for the mental development of the youth of China. Aesthetic education plays a definitive role in the development of a beautiful soul, filling the students with love and promoting the creation of great works of art.

Cai Yuanpei

---------------------------------------------

Cai Yuanpei

Thanks to the continual influence of Confucianism—only broken by the ten years of the Cultural Revolution—there is a continuing tradition going back thousands of years in which the development of a moral character represents the highest goal of education. It is thus taken for granted in China that attention to public morals and combating bad characteristics in the population constitute the precondition for a highly developed society. For example, the Court Report on Educational Goals of the Academic Ministry of the Qing government in 1906 required, above all course content, the teaching of public morals (gongde) and Confucian teachings on virtue, in order that “each has concern for others as he does for himself, and loves the state as one loves his own family.”

A key to understanding the special significance of aesthetic education in China today, however, lies not only in the teachings of Confucius—who assigned a crucial role in the development of a moral character to the occupation with poetry and good music—but in the scholar who has influenced China’s modern education system more than anyone else: the first Minister of Education of the Provisional Republic of China, Cai Yuanpei. Cai acquired the academic title of xiucai at the age of 15, due to his extraordinary intelligence and diligence, the highest title jingshi at age 24, becoming a bianxiu in 1894—and at the age of 26 had reached the highest level of academic career in the Qing dynasty. He had excellent knowledge of the classical script and was famous for his beautiful classical style.

During this time, Cai, along with the entire Chinese elite, was shocked that China was defeated in the war against Japan, and had generally lost out in every invasion since the Opium Wars, paying high reparations and ceding rights to the invaders. Among intellectuals, it was discussed how Japan—which for centuries was considered backward—had become so strong through the Meiji Restoration, and they sought to learn the lesson of this transformation.

The corruption of the Qing dynasty was also blamed for these disgraceful defeats. Cai was convinced that the state would only survive if there was a change in the consciousness of the people, and that this improvement could only be achieved by improving the content of education. Cai first began to investigate the Japanese and then the European educational systems. Finally, he traveled to France and Germany, where he studied civilizational and cultural history of the West in Leipzig from 1907 to 1911, before he was appointed as Minister of Education by Sun Yat-sen in 1912.

Bottom left: Painting by Anton Graff

Top: Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten; bottom left: Friedrich Schiller; bottom right: Wilhelm von Humboldt

---------------------------------------------

From Germany

Cai undertook in-depth studies of the aesthetic writings of Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten, Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Schiller, as well as the concept of education of Wilhelm von Humboldt. Inspired by the excellent studies on the history of philosophy of Wilhelm Windelband, and by direct study of Kant, Schiller and von Humboldt, he realized very quickly that Schiller’s conception of aesthetic education was not only in complete affinity with Confucian morality—Schiller’s concept of “the beautiful soul” completely corresponded with the Confucian idea of the junzi—but Schiller spoke about these questions with greater clarity and from a higher point of view than any earlier or contemporary philosophers.

“The comprehensive theory of Friedrich Schiller and the idea of aesthetic education brought great clarity to everyone,” writes Cai. “Since that time, the European idea of aesthetic education can supply us with a great deal from which we can draw for developing our own understanding of the subject.” Cai’s biographer, Cai Jianguo further quotes Cai Yuanpei: “In Germany, aesthetic education impressed me greatly. I want to use all my powers to promote them.” Cai created the Chinese term meiju, which had not previously existed in that language.

Schiller wrote the Aesthetic Letters in response to the failure of the French Revolution, and argued that from then on, any improvement in the political realm can only come from the ennoblement of the individual. Only if man rises above the transient happiness of the world of the senses, and engages his efforts not only for himself, but the community; not only for the present, but the future; not for physical pleasure, but spiritual creativity; only then could the state prosper. In the Letters and in further pioneering writings on aesthetics, Schiller developed why this ennoblement of character can be achieved by immersion in great classical art.

Cai Yuanpei recognized the striking coincidence between the teachings of Confucius and the aesthetics of Schiller. The immersion in poetry, music, and painting during one’s leisure hours awakens in the beholder an aesthetic pleasure in which lies neither a desire for nor a rejection of the sensible world. Rather, the taste is formed, and the emotions are ennobled. Aesthetic sensibility embraces beauty and sublimity, thus forming a bridge between the sensual world and reason. Every human being has a mind, but not everyone is capable of producing great and noble deeds. Therefore this mind must become stronger as a driving force, by ennobling it.

In 1912, Cai wrote the Theses on New Education and the Textbook on Moral and Personal Development for the Secondary School, in which he characterized human conscience as the essential guide to behavior. In an essay of May 10, 1919, he wrote:

I believe that the root of our country’s problems is in the shortsightedness of so many people who want quick success or quick money without any higher moral thinking. The only medicine is aesthetic education.

Humboldt’s Idea of Unity

Of course, it should not go unmentioned that Cai, as president of the University of Beijing, led this institution to internationally recognized scientific renown, taking up many suggestions from Wilhelm von Humboldt, who established the unity of research and teaching, and the beauty of character as an educational goal at the University of Berlin. Because of Cai’s prestige, the University in Beijing soon became a magnet for many young Chinese scholars returning from overseas, just as he became the inspiration for many other art colleges and academies.

In my view, Cai Yuanpei’s conception of the state as a larger family, in which the interests of the state must take precedence over the interests of individual families, is also of paramount importance for understanding the policies of President Xi Jinping and his idea of the “Community for the Future of Mankind,” because for him the prosperity of the state was the prerequisite for the happiness of the citizens. However, the interests of the world as the home of all living beings was also set before the interests of the individual state.

Cai wrote: “Until the ‘great community’ of the world is realized, the interests of society cannot be identical with those of the world.” He also emphasized that in fulfilling the duty to the state, one must be careful not to contradict the duty of the world. He dreamed of a “great community” of the entire world (datong shijie), which would be peaceful and harmonious, without class distinctions and state boundaries, without armies and war. All humans would understand each other in this world community and help one another. Cai saw the “Dialogue of Cultures” as the pathway to this goal:

I have often thought that a nation must necessarily absorb the culture of other peoples. This is like the body of a human being who cannot grow without breathing the air of the outside world, without eating and drinking.

Yes, he saw in this meeting of cultures the absolute prerequisite of higher development:

If one takes a look at the development of the world history, one sees that the confrontation of different cultures always leads to the emergence of a new one.

The realization of this vision is absolutely identifiable through the dynamism and the “Spirit of the New Silk Road.” The principles that must determine the “righteous path” for the new paradigm are not static axioms, but consist of the prospects arising from the aesthetic education of, eventually, all human beings.

In a world where economics is not based on the principles of profit maximization and the greatest possible satisfaction of individual greed, but on the best possible promotion of human creativity as the motor of an anti-entropic developing universe—if, so to speak, the “cosmic order” inspires political, economic and cultural life—then the dreams of Confucius, Schiller, Cai Yuanpei, Xi Jinping and Lyndon LaRouche are the political legislators of humanity. As Tagore expressed it in his famous dialogue with Einstein: “When our universe is in harmony with Man, the eternal, we know it as Truth, we feel it as beauty.”

CONFERENCE OF ALL ASIAN NATIONS

Peace and Development

Remain the Call of Our Times

Xinhua/Wang Ye

Chinese and foreign leaders and guests before the opening of the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations, at the China National Convention Center in Beijing, China on May 15, 2019.

---------------------------------------------

May 26—The “Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations,” held in Beijing, China on May 15, 2019, was attended by 1,352 representatives including the 47 countries of Asia, other parts of the world, and international organizations. Chinese President Xi Jinping at the opening of the conference stated, “Various civilizations are not destined to clash.” He further underscored the danger of the idea of a necessary clash of civilizations, saying, “The intensifying global challenges humanity are facing now require concerted efforts from countries across the world,” and highlighted the role of culture in coping with common challenges.

This conference was Asia’s first-ever grand gathering themed on inter-civilizational exchanges and mutual learning for a community with a shared future. The following consensus was reached at the conference and released to the public.

The 2019 Beijing Consensus of the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations

We believe that the ancestors of Asian nations have created splendid civilizations, promoted cultural progress, raised living standards and developed diverse social systems. Today, Asian civilizations are conducting exchanges with openness and thriving as a result of mutual learning. The flowers of Asian civilizations are in full bloom in the garden of world civilizations. The peoples of Asian countries should build strong confidence in their own civilizations and endeavor to achieve greater splendor in the future.

The world is undergoing major development, transformation and adjustment, but peace and development remain the call of our times. Meanwhile, we are facing a number of severe global challenges. An effective response to these challenges requires not only economic, scientific and technological strength, but also the power of culture and civilization. The Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations provides a broad platform for promoting dialogue, exchanges and mutual learning on an equal footing, and for the development of civilizations in Asia and the world at large.

We believe that the diversity of civilizations is an essential feature of our world. Every civilization, with its unique appeal and roots, is a treasure of humanity. Diverse civilizations should respect each other in a spirit of inclusiveness and mutual learning. In light of history and reality, we should ensure that respect for diversity will replace a sense of superiority, harmonious coexistence will replace clashes, exchanges and sharing will replace estrangement, and joint progress will replace isolation. In this way, all civilizations can appreciate each other’s beauty while valuing that of their own, and achieve common development.

We believe that all peoples aspire for peace and tranquility, common prosperity, openness and interconnectivity in Asia and the world at large. Exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations act as a major driver for world progress, peace and development, and hold the key to building a community with a shared future for mankind. We need to strengthen dialogue and promote mutual understanding and trust, as well as people-to-people exchanges between countries, ethnicities and cultures. In doing so, we will lay solid cultural and social foundations and cement public understanding for building a community with a shared future for Asia and all mankind.

We hope that the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations will provide Asia and the international community with a new starting point for conducting more extensive and in-depth intercivilizational dialogue, and building a diversified communication mechanism and a multi-level dialogue platform. We should pursue development through innovation and keep pace with the times while maintaining our cultural traditions, so as to maximize the driving forces for cultural progress. We should promote cooperation among different countries in the fields of culture, tourism, education, media, think tanks, health and nongovernmental exchanges. We should look out for each other and work in solidarity. We should join hands to provide Asia and the world with wisdom and the impetus for peaceful development, and build a better future for Asian and world civilizations.

We highly appreciate China’s contribution to promoting dialogue among Asian civilizations and its excellent organization of this conference. We will join China in pushing forward exchanges and mutual learning among all civilizations.

THE BRITISH SEEK WAR

President Trump Orders Declassification: What Did the Queen Know and When Did She Know It?

by Barbara Boyd

May 23—As we head into Memorial Day in Washington, dysfunctional madness and insurrection are the order of the day from the Democrats and the legacy news media. The Speaker of the House says the President is a criminal who is conducting crimes right before our eyes and, immediately thereafter, strolls into a meeting with him at the White House to negotiate about infrastructure. He walks out. She then says he was throwing a tantrum and, apparently, should have just ignored her claim, delivered just minutes before she walked into the room, that he is an out-and-out crook.

The deranged former head of the FBI says that the President has eaten the Attorney General’s soul. Similar, absolutely psychotic and crazed formulations dominate the media landscape. Liberal judges, the legacy media, the pompous House committee chairmen, preening for the cameras every day, spout nonsense, insisting that the three-year attempted coup against the President, which has stalled the nation and is eating like a cancer at the institutions of government, must continue. The image of the mad Queen in Alice in Wonderland, somehow producing small replicas of herself, male and female, comes to mind.

Illustration by John Tenniel

---------------------------------------------

So, the President, being a President, called the question during the evening of May 23. You see, all of the drama in Washington is in reaction to the fact that all of these fools are about to be exposed. Thursday night, the White House announced that the President has given Attorney General William Barr full authority to declassify documents concerning the spying on the Trump Campaign and the transition, and the cooked-up witch hunt against this President. The President has also ordered all of his intelligence agencies, the State Department, and other key agencies to cough up documents and cooperate with the Attorney General’s investigation.

Walls Close in on British and

U.S. Co-Conspirators

Meanwhile, across the pond, as they say, the British government teeters on the edge of collapse over Brexit. Still, ahead of the President’s June visit, a furious mobilization is underway to cover up the British instigation and conduct in the coup against Trump.

The Queen initiated a charm offensive, inviting Trump for a historic and fairly unprecedented state visit. All the British tabloids were filled with a cover story on May 19, led by the Daily Telegraph, exposing but limiting the British government’s dealings with MI6 spy Christopher Steele and his dirty and fabricated dossier and government-sponsored information warfare operations against Donald Trump. At the same time, in true British fashion, the declaration that President Trump must not have a second term, a declaration loudly proclaimed as official British policy in the December 2018 House of Lords Report, British Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order, is being implemented in the form of ramping up every perpetual hot spot in the world. The game here is to get the President involved in a war, based on British hoaxes, pretexts, and assets, creating an actual possibility for this President’s electoral defeat.

So, the proverbial walls, which we have heard so much about for three years, are actually closing in—not on Donald Trump, but on the British imperialists and their satraps in the establishment of the United States, who illegally intervened to swing the 2016 U.S. presidential election to Hillary Clinton.

Attorney General Barr has announced that he is not just investigating gross misconduct at the top of the U.S. Department of Justice with respect to spying on the Trump Presidential Campaign and transition. He has opened an investigation into the early actions of the Obama intelligence chiefs in going after candidate Trump. He has appointed a dogged investigator, John Durham, to go after this and has also created his own investigative group within the DOJ. Congressman Devin Nunes has sent a letter to the White House (see p. 19), citing the articles in the British press over the last few days about British operations against Donald Trump, suggesting that the President use his June state visit to Britain to fully explore the British origins of the coup against him. This proposal concerning President Trump’s visit, was originally made by Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

New Revelations of British Role in Coup

Reporter Paul Sperry from the New York Post, also obviously receiving official leaks, made three highly significant twitter posts in the past few days. Summarized, they state that John Durham is investigating an American intelligence cell set up by Obama CIA Chief John Brennan and involving multiple agencies, based on briefings that Christopher Steele, author of the infamous fake dossier against Trump, gave to British intelligence in early 2016, about Russia and Trump. Another Sperry tweet states that we can expect to find that the Steele dossier functioned as the equivalent of the dodgy dossier—the entirely fake intelligence knowingly promoted by Sir Richard Dearlove (head of Britain’s secret intelligence service MI6, 1966-2004) and Tony Blair (UK Prime Minister, 1997-2007)—that got the United States into the disastrous Iraq War.

In 2016, the British-instigated, targeted surveillance and dirty tricks operation was aimed at politically disorienting and defeating the angry constituencies in the United States and Britain backing both Trump and Brexit. Another Sperry tweet states that the investigation conducted by Barr and Durham includes the U.S. embassies in London and Kiev, Ukraine, both of which were up to their ears in the attempt to swing the election for Clinton, while simultaneously demonizing Putin and Russia. If Sperry is right, Barr and Durham are targeting the very heart of the imperial beast.

According to the British cover stories published on May 19, British intelligence knew about Christopher Steele’s dirty dossier before Donald Trump learned about it from FBI Director James Comey in January 2017. As the fake news goes, Christopher Steele provided his fake facts to Charles Farr, who headed the all-powerful British Joint Intelligence Committee and the Joint Intelligence Organizations for UK Prime Minister Theresa May, in November of 2016. Farr and Steele reviewed Steele’s “intelligence” in detail.

The only problem with the cover story is that the same very same British tabloids came damn near publishing something truthful about all of this back in 2017, when their confidence was high that the coup against Trump would succeed. On April 17, 2017, the Guardian bragged, British intelligence had been working up a file on Trump and Russia since 2015 and colluding with President Obama’s CIA Chief John Brennan in its development.

Charles Farr was a truly crazed intelligence mandarin in the image of Dr. Strangelove, and is, conveniently, dead and unavailable for further interrogation. He was known for his promotion of total surveillance and censorship regimes for manipulating the population, based on the pretext of confronting terrorism and for an insane drive for regime change in Russia. Russiagate has proved to be a far more potent narrative for imposing the police state surveillance schemes Farr advocated, with people who formerly advocated free speech and civil liberties now signing up in droves for measures that will crush and censor all dissent.

Cancilleria del Ecuador/David G. Silvers

Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, in 2016.

---------------------------------------------

As this is being written, Julian Assange, the founder and director of WikiLeaks, has been indicted by the United States while in British custody, on charges which could send him to prison for life. Thus, one of the few people who actually know the sources for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Podesta leaks that Anglophilic Senator John McCain declared a Russian act of war, is in a situation in which his life is in immediate danger. True to the story here, Assange was not indicted for anything having to do with the 2016 elections, since no case could be proved against him for the hoax called the Russian hack of the DNC and John Podesta. Instead, he was indicted for publications made nearly a decade ago, involving leaks by former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning.

LPAC-TV

Larry C. Johnson, former CIA Analyst and State Department counter-terror expert (left) and William Binney, former NSA Technical Director.

---------------------------------------------

Listen to Larry Johnson and

William Binney

Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA Analyst and State Department counter-terror expert, says that British intelligence undertook a broad-sweep surveillance operation against all U.S. presidential candidates in 2015 (not just Donald Trump), in order to secure the election for Hillary Clinton. As Trump advanced through the primaries, the operation expanded and included more spies on both sides of the Atlantic.

Entrapment operations were launched against the Trump Campaign, many of them on British soil, in order to fabricate evidence and justify further investigations, all on phony pretexts. Informants and assets on both sides of the Atlantic made repeated approaches to the campaign itself and to its volunteers and staff, offering “dirt” on Hillary Clinton from the Russians.

Long-time FBI informant Felix Sater, together with his boyhood friend Michael Cohen, pressed Trump on his project for a Trump property in Moscow. At the same time, Ukrainian intelligence collaborated with Alexandra Chalupa, a contractor for the DNC and, like Christopher Steele, a major player in the 2014 Anglo-American Ukrainian coup, in the targeting of Paul Manafort, Trump’s Campaign Chairman. Chalupa’s various tweets indicate that she was fully in league and working with Steele on his full-spectrum information warfare campaign against the Trump Campaign and transition on behalf of the British and the Obama White House.

Bill Binney, former NSA Technical Director, has demonstrated that there was no Russian hack of the DNC or Podesta, based on actual forensics and data extracted from what WikiLeaks published from the DNC and Podesta. Binney has submitted an affidavit in the Roger Stone criminal case, challenging the entire Russiagate narrative about these so-called hacks as invented by CrowdStrike and Robert Mueller. In the next days, the government must answer Binney’s facts.

WEF/Benedikt von Loebell

Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and Chief Technology Officer of CrowdStrike, in 2016.

---------------------------------------------

As many know, the FBI and Mueller depended upon CrowdStrike, the DNC’s computer security vendor, for its conclusion that Russia hacked the DNC, never examining the actual crime scene themselves. But, in addition to this complete breach of any investigative protocol, the FBI had to know that Dmitri Alperovitch, the CrowdStrike investigator responsible for attributing the WikiLeaks publications to a Russian hack, was violently anti-Russian. He led the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensics Lab (DFL), and both Dmitri Alperovitch and DFL were up to their ears, like Christopher Steele and Victoria Nuland’s State Department, in the British-instigated Ukraine coup. In fact, Alperovitch, in December of 2016, got caught falsely attributing a hack of Ukrainian military equipment to the Russians, an attribution which was so reckless that it was retracted by both Britain’s International Institute for Strategic Studies and the Ukrainian government.

British Were Desperate for a

Clinton Presidency

Why were the British so desperate to secure the election for Hillary Clinton, to control the President of the United States in the year 2016? The answer lies in the fact that their globalist financial system lost all credibility in the collapse of 2007-2008. Populations across the advanced sector began to revolt and have continued to demand radical change. At the same time, China stepped forward with its great Belt and Road Initiative, promising to put the entire world on a new, modern infrastructure platform—promising real physical economic development. Russia and China proposed developing all of Eurasia, the land which since Halford Mackinder has been at the center of the British Great Game for world geopolitical dominance, and that development process is underway.

Frantic, the British imperial establishment launched a campaign for regime change in Russia and strategic encirclement of Russian President Putin, culminating its initial stage in the 2014 coup in Ukraine. At the same time, the British blew up the Middle East, their strategic playground, yet again, throwing terrorists against the Assad regime in Syria and persistently pestering the United States to involve itself wholesale in yet another genocidal war.

Obama, at the same time, began his strategic and financial encirclement of China, and military provocations in the South China Sea, a strategy which was supposed to culminate in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The only sure bet to continue these insane policies was the deranged war hawk, Hillary Clinton—the woman who expressed outright glee when Muammar Gaddafi was sodomized and assassinated, and who outrageously compares Putin to Hitler to the delight of her British masters. Clinton was involved in the direct interventions into the 2011 Russian parliamentary elections and joined the British in regime change operations directed against Russia. When Donald Trump revolted publicly against the British policy of perpetual war and said getting along with Russia was a good thing, the British resolved to eliminate him, no matter what the cost.

NUNES’ LETTER

What Role May UK Officials Have Played in Spreading False Allegations?

The following letter was written by Devin Nunes, Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, to President Trump.

Congress of the United States

Washington, DC 20515

May 22, 2019

President Donald J. Trump

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

On May 19, 2019, the Telegraph published an article titled, “Theresa May’s Spy Chiefs Were Briefed on Explosive Christopher Steele Dossier Before Donald Trump.”[fn_1] According to the Telegraph, Christopher Steele personally briefed British intelligence officials on the dossier he compiled on the Trump campaign. The article states that Steele’s information was rapidly briefed up the chain to multiple high-level British government officials, including MI5 director general Andrew Parker and MI6 chief Alex Younger.

The claims asserted in the Telegraph article, if true, raise important questions about the potential role foreign government officials may have played in spreading the dossier’s false allegations and what actions they may have taken in response to the allegations. To better understand these matters, I respectfully request that you ask Prime Minister May about the British government’ s knowledge of the Steele dossier and whether the British government took any unilateral actions based on information provided by Steele or at the request of any U.S. departments or agencies, including but not limited to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Specifically, I recommend you ask:

• Did Christopher Steele inform any current or former British intelligence or government officials about the allegations he put forward in the Steele dossier or any other allegations about President Trump or Trump campaign associates colluding with Russians? If so, describe what action British officials took in response to this information.

• Did any current or former British intelligence or government officials discuss with Christopher Steele the possibility of Steele writing additional memos about President Trump or Trump associates colluding with Russians? If so, what guidance did British officials give to Steele and when was this guidance provided?

• Did any current or former U.S. government or intelligence officials inform any current or former British government or intelligence officials about Steele’ s allegations or any other allegations about President Trump or Trump campaign associates colluding with Russians, if other such allegations exist? If so, describe the circumstances and timing of this communication and any resulting action that was taken.

• Is the British government aware of, did it give permission for, or did it participate in, activities by any government to surveil or otherwise target active or former associates of the Trump campaign, if any such surveillance or activities took place?

• Did any current or former British intelligence or government officials relay classified or unclassified information to any current or former U.S. officials about alleged contacts between Trump associates and suspected Russian intelligence officials, if any such information exists? If so, when was the information relayed and how was this information collected?

• Describe any communications or relationship, if any, Joseph Mifsud (potentially also known as Joseph di Gabriele) has had with British intelligence and any information the British government possesses about Mifsud’s connection to any other government or intelligence agency.

• Did any current or former British officials provide an assessment of Christopher Steele, including a determination of his credibility or motivations, to any current or former U.S. intelligence, law enforcement, or government officials, or presidential transition team members?

Please contact Committee Republican staff at (202) 225-4121 with any questions about this request.

Sincerely,

Devin Nunes

Ranking Member House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

[fn_1]. Ben Riley-Smith & Robert Mendick, “Theresa May’s Spy Chiefs Were Briefing on Explosive Christopher Steele Dossier Before Donald Trump,” Telegraph (May 19, 2019). [back to text for fn_1]

II. The LaRouche Revolution

September 15, 1997

Popular Misconceptions About Science

Science Is Not ‘Statistics’

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

This memorandum on the subject of understanding non-linearity, first released on larouchepub.com, is being published in EIR magazine for the first time.

There is an already significant, and rapidly growing amount of communication directed, partly, toward me, and, more often, as idle gossip about me, in that electronic purgatory which, I am told, is populated by (shades of H.G. Wells’ The Island of Dr. Moreau!) strange, tormented, polymorphic entities: web-footed, half-man, half-mouse. A significant ration of this electronic chaff and chatter reflects the widely circulated opinion, that I am responsible for more or less successfully discrediting two popular, pseudo-scientific hoaxes: F. Sherwood Roland’s “Ozone Hole” hoax, and the kindred fraud, “Global Warming.”

Like squeals from flies in extremis, as fancy might hear the wriggling creatures trapped in another kind of web, there is a number of U.S. co-thinkers of Britain’s current Labour Party Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who are frustrated, and enraged against what they consider President Clinton’s stubborn refusal to impose those demands for collapsing the U.S. economy, demands which are pushed by the “Global Warming” fanatics. Prominent amid this Blairing protest, is the complaint, that persons associated with me were active in exposing the two referenced hoaxes. Since my name is more or less a household word in this and many other countries around the world, the enraged ones find it emotionally self-gratifying to develop a “conspiracy theory,” identifying me as the evil genius causing their own, Maurice Strong’s, and Tony Blair’s frustration in these matters.

Apart from such cranks, there is a significant number of individuals of manifest good will, who are willing to submit their adopted opinions to the tests of my own and other criticism. I excerpt a passage typical of one such recent communication:

Can you tell me information about your science. Because there are a lot of good scientists out there, like you, dealing with information. If the top ones out there say there might be an Ozone problem, and some of these men and women are not being bought by the Powerful, then, why discredit them? Please answer that.

The author of that statement is factually mistaken, but the question is nonetheless fair by the standards appropriate for the “Generation X” presence within university classrooms and related settings. The received questions, pertaining to “environmental issues” of this type, pose three interrelated questions. 1.) Why do I reject those new views on the “environment,” the which have become popularized during the recent thirty-odd years? 2.) What is the basis for my scientific method? 3.) What authority lies within that, my scientific method, that of economic science, which qualifies me to pass authoritative judgment on the competence of a top-ranking hoaxster such as F. Sherwood Rowland?

Based on those considerations, rather than responding, repetitively, to each of these inquiries individually, it were suitable than I publish a single, common reply to all those received, and other messages which pose the same general line of questioning. Naturally, this present response will also be posted on the relevant EIR site.

On the subject of the “Ozone Hole” hoax, evidence continues to support the case set forth by co-authors Rogelio A. Maduro and Ralf Schauerhammer Rogelio Maduro, in their internationally celebrated The Holes in the Ozone Scare.[fn_1] In the case of the “Global Warming” scare, the unscientific method is modelled on the fraudulent tactic used by Rowland, and others, to concoct the “Ozone Hole” hoax. Thus, in broad terms, the Schauerhammer-Maduro book demonstrates the case to be made against both of these hoaxes. In answer to part of the misinformed doubt that environmental scientists had been “bought,” wrongly asserted by the reader: It is notable that Rowland became a “top scientist,” including his appointment to lead the American clone (AAAS) of the British Association for Advancement of Science (BAAS), as one instance of the celebrity he attained in recognition of his concoction of the “Ozone Hole” scam.

The argument to be made against both of these, and related pseudo-scientific “ecologisms,” is to be presented on two levels. The first level is typified by Dr. Dixy Lee Ray’s endorsement of the Maduro-Schauerhammer text:

. . . Everyone interested in the so-called global environmental issues should read this powerful book, and then consider whether press releases and computer simulations that are unaccompanied by solid scientific evidence should drive our nation’s science policy.”[fn_2]

Dr. Ray spoke as a representative of those standards of scientific competence which were generally accepted by the scientists from the generations which lived, as adults, through either or both of the two World Wars of this century. Rowland typifies the post-modernist collapse in intellectual and moral standards of scientific practice, the which has taken over leading positions in shaping “politically-correct science opinion” during the past twenty-five years.[fn_3]

The clinical fact, that an incompetent, Rowland, has achieved as much celebrity as he has, guides us toward a second, deeper issue. The post-modernist quackademics of Rowland’s following, received their university education under the direction of scientists from my own generation. This poses the question: “What misled relevant faculty members, from the World Wars I and II generations, into awarding today’s new generation of leading, ’politically correct’ science-quacks their university degrees?” What is the relevant virus of error infecting the classroom and related practice of earlier generations of actual scientists, the virus which is expressed by their “Baby Boomer” and “Generation X” students, as the “Ozone Hole” and “Global Warming” hoaxes?

In my conclusion, I shall identify summarily the anti-science, political motives responsible for these activities of Rowland et al. That, I think, should wait until after I have situated the problem within the bounds of the science profession as such. I begin with a crucial example of the relevant problem, as encountered within my own specialty, economics.

Adam Smith (left) and his follower Karl Marx both committed the same fundamental blunder in respect to their axiomatic principles of political-economy.

---------------------------------------------

Why Karl Marx and Adam Smith

Were Incompetent

Adam Smith and his follower Karl Marx committed the same fundamental blunder, in their respective misdefinitions of the axiomatic principles of political-economy. The difference between these two, is that Marx, unlike the modern Manicheans, such as Michael Novak and those of the Mont Pelerin Society, admitted the existence of that specific fallacy of composition in his construction.[fn_4] There is nothing in the design of the economics doctrines of virtually any variety of economics doctrine taught in any university today, which makes any functional distinction between the presumption that the economy is run by apes, or by human beings. Specifically, all of this assortment excluded consideration of those developable cognitive functions of the individual human mind, within which discoveries of physical principle are generated. These are same principles assimilated for economic practice, and also assimilated as increases in the per-capita, physical, productive powers of labor.

The omission is monstrously large, a monstrous and pervasive incompetence inhering in virtually all “mainstream” varieties of textbooks and university classroom instruction today. This reveals the same, defective state of mind, in the field of economics, exhibited by such former proteges of Bertrand Russell as the “inventor of information theory,” Norbert Wiener, and the inventor of “systems analysis,” Russellite acolyte John von Neumann.

The core of the relevant argument to be made, involves the empirical evidence which demonstrates, conclusively, that the human individual differs fundamentally from that class of higher apes with which some zoologists have often, mistakenly, identified the human species. Essentially, under the conditions which have existed on this planet during approximately two millions years to date, the ecological population-potential of all species of higher apes, combined, has never exceeded several millions living individuals. Whereas, man, who appears, superficially, to have the ecological attributes of a higher ape, had reached planetary population-levels in the hundreds of millions during European civilization’s Hellenistic period, and is measured in billions today.[fn_5]

Henning Hassmann

One of eight wooden throwing spears from the Palaeolithic Age, excavated between 1994 and 1998 in an open-pit lignite coal mine in Schöningen, Germany.

---------------------------------------------

The combined archeological and historical evidence compels us to recognize that this qualitative distinction, which places mankind outside ecology, outside the domain of lower forms of life, is that mental faculty, relatively unique to mankind, whose fruits are typified by the increase of the human species’ potential relative population-density, through the benefits of scientific and technological progress. For example, a throwing-spear, recently excavated from a stratum 600,000 years deep within Germany’s Hartz Mountains region, can be attributed to nothing other than a mind identical with the modern human genotype’s.[fn_6]

This subject, the relationship between those distinctive, cognitive powers of the human individual’s mind, and the increase of the potential relative population-density of the human species, is the foundation of all of my professional accomplishments over more than four decades to the present date. It is from the standpoint of my original and related discoveries in this area of investigation, that I have adopted and advanced that science of physical economy first established, under that name, by the principal mentor of my adolescent intellectual life, Gottfried Leibniz, during his related work of the 1671-1716 interval. Since late 1952, my work has been indebted to Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 revolution in physical geometry for the representation of the implicitly measurable relationship between validated discoveries of physical principle, by individual minds, and the increase of the productive powers of labor (i.e., increase of potential relative population-density) by societies which commit themselves to scientific and technological progress.

For purposes of illustration, the application of Riemann’s metrical principles to my discoveries respecting the human mind, the so-called “LaRouche-Riemann Model,”[fn_7] is typified by the work of such earlier followers of Leibniz as Lazard Carnot and the circles of Carl Gauss and Alexander von Humboldt, in developing the principles used by President Abraham Lincoln’s United States to launch that modern machine-tool economy-driver model later copied by post-1876 Germany, and other nations.[fn_8]

Cognition:The Active Principle in Economy

The key to the relative uniqueness of my own discoveries, is my shifting the investigation of the way in which the individual human mind generates experimentally validatable discoveries of physical principle: rejecting the parochial view of “physical science,” as customarily defined during the Twentieth Century, and, employing for physical science, instead, the standpoint of the role of metaphor in Classical art-forms of poetry, dramatic tragedy, musical polyphony, and plastic arts in such traditions as those of ancient Scopas, Praxiteles, or modern followers of Leonardo da Vinci such as Raphael Sanzio. To restate this point in a relevant way: the ontological paradox which demands a resolving discovery of new physical principle, in the domain of experimental physical science, is viewed by the cognitive processes of the developed individual mind, as the same type of challenge represented by a true metaphor in the domain of Classical forms of plastic and non-plastic art.

Praxiteles of Athens

Detail of a statue of Hermes bearing the infant Dionysus.

---------------------------------------------

The issue which prompted me to effect these discoveries, was a 1948 confrontation with Professor Norbert Wiener’s “information theory” hoax. My response to Wiener’s provocation (and, also, the same hoax presented by John von Neumann under the rubric of “systems analysis”), was premised upon my previously established, and deeply embedded commitment to the methodological standpoint of Gottfried Leibniz, the commitment which I had adopted during my mid-adolescence. Although I first adopted this method from Leibniz, rather than the Plato from whom Leibniz had himself adopted it, my method, then and now, is strictly Platonic. The term “Platonic” has the following, decisive significance in addressing the issues posed by the currently popular ecological hoaxes against science.

The central issue posed by the notion of “human knowledge,” is the fact, that all claims to such knowledge depend absolutely upon the contention that the laws of the universe are not embedded within the domain of sense-perceptions as such, but, rather, lie within man’s ability to willfully change human behavior to such effect, that man’s per-capita power over the universe is willfully, manifestly increased. The forms of mental activity, through which those willful increases in power over nature are achieved, are the subject-matter of knowledge, as knowledge must not be confused with mere sense-perception, or with mere “textbook learning.”

This may be restated as follows. The foundation of both science, and Classical forms of artistic composition, is the process by which individual human minds are capable of generating those experimentally validatable discoveries of both physical and cognitive principle, the which are generated as solutions to contradictions which can not be resolved by deductive methods. The type of contradiction involved is typified by the following general case.

Given, the circumstance, that undeniable evidence shows the occurrence of phenomena whose existence is implicitly prohibited by presently established principles of scientific knowledge. Since, the disturbing evidence, and the previously established scientific knowledge, are both manifestations of the same faculty for determining empirical actuality, the contradiction between the extant belief and such contradictory evidence is ontological in implication. Hence, the contradiction is rightly described as an ontological paradox.

The Death of Hamlet (Act 5, Scene 2).

---------------------------------------------

The parallel case, in Classical forms of art, is typified by the issues of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the famous Act III soliloquy most emphatically. Hamlet knows, that clinging to his accustomed, swashbuckling code of conduct, dooms him, and also dooms the kingdom of Denmark. The existence of a contradictory, alternate behavior, is apparent to him. He would prefer, however, to cling to the inevitable doom of following his habituated inclinations, rather than risk the uncertainties of a future “from whose bourn no traveller has returned.” So, he and Denmark are doomed; so, the final scene of the play closes, over the warm corpse of Hamlet, with the character Horatio, speaking from within the play, to us, the surviving witnesses, in the play’s audience; that Horatio, then, implores us, to relive that contradiction, that we, in the future, might escape the self-doom which Hamlet imposed upon both his own nation, as upon himself. In all Classical art-forms, the expression of such dualities of implication—ontological paradoxes,—is called “metaphor.”[fn_9]

The presently existing possibility of a mathematical representation of this process of discovery of a validatable new physical principle, we owe to that family of discoveries by Bernhard Riemann which is centered around his 1854 habilitation dissertation, “On The Hypotheses Which Underlie Geometry,”[fn_10] and to the preceding work of Gottfried Leibniz,[fn_11] Johann F. Herbart,[fn_12] and, immediately, the work of Carl Gauss on the development of a general theory of curved surfaces, out of preceding and accompanying work on biquadratic residues.[fn_13]

A summary account of my own approach, which led into my rereading of Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation from this standpoint, will be helpful to the reader on several counts, respecting the material covered in this general reply.

The starting-point for my attack on Wiener’s “information theory” hoax, was, inevitably, the nature of the distinction between processes whose underlying ordering is overall entropic, as distinct from, for example, the species of living processes, which are anti-entropic in their typical, underlying distinctions in ordering, differing so from what we consider particular cases of non-living processes, including non-living organic processes. This was the same starting-point adopted for all issues of physical principle, by such notable followers of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa’s founding principles for modern experimental physics, as Luca Pacioli, Leonardo da Vinci, and Johannes Kepler.

To determine, from the standpoint of crucial-experimental tests, whether particular types of human communication of ideas are entropic, or not, is a matter of showing whether, or not, the result of that communication, is a potential increase, or decrease of the entropy expressed in society’s physical relationship to nature. This measurement must be made from the standpoint of the relevant actor, mankind, receiving this communication. Hence, we must measure the experimental result so: in terms of man’s physical power over nature, per capita, and in terms of improvements in the demographic characteristics of the relevant class of households. Thus, for such measurements, we must exclude all consideration of money-prices, or related fictitious valuations; we must limit our attention to the physical interaction of mankind with nature: i.e., to Leibniz’s and my own relevant domain in science, that of the science of physical economy.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

---------------------------------------------

Respecting the increase or decrease of the entropy of social interaction with nature, we start with the general fact, that the increase of the human species’ potential relative population-density, and correlated demographic considerations, depends upon discoveries of principle which, introduced, have the mathematical-physical implication of axiomatic changes in the notion of a geometry of man’s functional interrelationship with the universe.

The changes corresponding to successful axiomatic transformations of this type, are expressed as activities each corresponding to those principles. Hence, in the successful case, the gain in productive power of labor (of potential relative population-density) occurs at the “price” of increase of per-capita value for “energy of the system,” when the latter is defined in respect to the process taken as a whole. Yet, in the successful case, the ratio of the process’s “free energy” to its required “energy of the system,” is either increased, or, at worst, not decreased. Thus, physical economy adopts the following relative definition of anti-entropy: the requirement, that the ratio of free energy to energy of the system not decrease, despite a required increase in the per-capita relative value of “energy of the system.”

This notion of a contrast of entropy to anti-entropy, lies outside what the ordinary university graduate considers mathematics. It lies within a higher, “meta-mathematical domain,” which Leibniz identified as the domain of Analysis Situs, and which, in mathematics, is otherwise associated, in its more limited aspects, with hypergeometric forms of modular functions.[fn_14] In other words, the generative (e.g., “causal”) distinction between entropy and anti-entropy, as distinct types of ordering, can be reflected in the results of the relevant ordering, but can never be defined in terms of a statistical function, or any other deductive mode of argument.[fn_15]

This brings us to the indispensable role of a Classical Euclidean geometry in science. No one could possibly achieve competence in scientific matters, without a grounding in a strict geometry of this type, a grounding preferably by about the time of onset of puberty, or slightly earlier. On this account, the introduction of the so-called “new math,” during the course of the 1950s, has crippled the cognitive functions of two generations of relevant university graduates. We shall state the case at an appropriate place, here below; but, at this instant, we proceed as if the reader had had the benefit of a pre-1966 U.S. standard for a competent, pre-science secondary education.

To make this distinction in notions of ordering clearer to the reader, consider the self-bounded characteristics of a deductive form of geometry, such as a classroom version of Euclidean geometry. Such a geometry allows as theorems, only propositions which are not inconsistent with any among a fixed set of combined definitions, axioms, and postulates. In the method of Plato, such a set of definitions, axioms, and postulates, is termed an hypothesis. The introduction of a newly discovered, and experimentally validated, physical principle, or of a new principle of cognition as such, creates a new physical geometry, one which is pervasively inconsistent with any acceptable theorem of a preexisting, deductive system of argument: thus, requiring a new hypothesis.[fn_16] Thus, physical science is focussed upon the nature of the ordering of successively more powerful hypotheses. (The ordering principle of such a succession is Plato’s notion of Higher Hypothesis.) These higher, meta-mathematical, forms of ordering, such as the distinctions between efficiently entropic and anti-entropic orderings, are apparently “meta-mathematical” precisely for the reason that they reflect the efficiency of those axiomatic principles (i.e., of higher hypothesis) which do not exist within the previously established systems of deductively ordered beliefs. These are the crucial issues of Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation, and also the underlying issues of the notions of modular, hypergeometric functions in the work of Gauss and Riemann.

Eratosthenes’ Method of Measuring the Size of the Earth

The Sun's rays are considered parallel. At noon on June 21, the Sun's zenith distance (angle) at Alexandria, Egypt is 7.2 degrees, while it is zero at Syene, where the Sun is directly overhead. But we see that the zenith angle at Alexandria (7.2°) is equal to the angle joining lines from Syene and Alexandria, respectively, to the center of the earth. Now 7.2° is a fiftieth of a 360° circle, so the distance between Syene and Alexandria, 5,000 stades, was one fiftieth of the circumference of the Earth.

---------------------------------------------

I have found it convenient, pedagogically, to illustrate this point by reference to the estimate for the size of the Earth constructed by the famous Third Century B.C. representative of Plato’s Academy at Athens, Archimedes’ contemporary and correspondent, Eratosthenes. In summary, the illustration is as follows.

From no later than the time of Thales, Classical Greece’s original development of the currents leading directly into modern science, had used sound principles to estimate both the distance of the Sun and Moon from the Earth’s surface. For reasons of scale intrinsic to the kinds of observation available, there was an inevitably large margin of error and difference, in and among these various observations. However, despite those margins of error, it was clearly shown to the Classical Greek mind, that the Sun was a very large object, at a very great distance from the surface of the Earth.[fn_17] Eratosthenes, a representative of Plato’s Athens Academy who rose to a topmost position in Egypt, conducted such observations himself. On the basis of that knowledge respecting the relationship of Sun to Earth, he devised a conceptually simple astrophysical approach to measurements in the geodesy of the Earth’s surface.

If one defines, astrophysically, the meridian line which connects Egypt’s Aswan (ancient Syene) to Alexandria, and if one places plumb-bob-oriented gnomons (pins) within hemispherical sundials at measured distances along that line, the size of the Earth can be estimated with decent approximation. (Eratosthenes’ estimate came within approximately fifty miles of the Earth’s polar diameter.) The comparison of the angles of the shadow cast by such a series of gnomons,[fn_18] when the shadows are each pointed, during the same day, in a north-south direction, implicitly defines the curvature of the Earth’s surface along that interval of the meridian-line.

Thus, for measuring all but very small areas of the Earth’s surface, we must enter the domain of astrophysics, the domain of geodesy. We must abandon the limits of a two-dimensional survey, to include a third dimension, corresponding to the line of the radius of curvature[fn_19] at each point (very small, e.g., infinitesimal interval) of the Earth’s surface. All valid discoveries of new physical principles are analogous to this Eratosthenes experiment.[fn_20] The validated new principle, which corrects the error in our previous doctrines about the physical universe, has the character of a new dimensionality in a physical space-time geometry. The discovery of that “dimensionality,” constitutes the solution for the ontological paradox addressed. This new “dimensionality,” appears to deductive opinion as in the form of an added axiom of deductive mathematical physics.

Norbert Wiener

---------------------------------------------

Thus, metaphor has the same form as those ontological paradoxes which require validatable discoveries of new physical principle. The difference is, that ontological paradox looks at one aspect of man’s interaction with the physical phase-space of that universe of which he is a part; metaphor looks, similarly, at the principles of individual human cognition themselves. On this account, Shakespeare, as master tragedian, is sometimes described as a “great psychologist.” The problem to be solved, is the fact that some stubborn mental blocks prevent ill-fated men, women, and even entire societies, from either discovering, or accepting a feasible alternative to a self-imposed, awful destruction. To avoid such doom, we must discover those principles of both the individual mind, and of relations among individual minds, which will enable us to prevent repetition of such errors.

It is metaphor which defines Classical art. It is the efficient interaction between discoveries of physical principle, the domain of physical science, and the use of Classical art-forms to uncover the moral principles of cognition, which defines a science of human history, the science of physical economy, and the corresponding principles of statecraft.

Thus, prior to my apprehending the relevance of Riemann’s work for the foregoing line of investigation, it was clear that the accumulation of new dimensionalities of validated discovery of physical and Classical-artistic principle was, at once, the expression of an increase of society’s per-capita “energy of the system,” and, at the same time, the source of an increase of the ratio of total “energy output,” per capita, to “energy of the system,” per capita. When Georg Cantor’s development of the concepts of transfinite ordering is properly situated, within the framework of Riemann’s 1854 discoveries, the means for expressing my anti-Wiener notion of anti-entropy, as the basis for a reform of economic science, is evident.

In the development of European culture, Plato traced science to Pythagoras and his school, and the anti-scientific, or contemplative standpoint, to the succession of Eleatics, materialists, and radical nominalists, and, of course, Plato’s enemies, the Aristoteleans. The first, the scientific standpoint, chooses as its primary subject-matter, the interrelationship between the self-development of the individual cognitive processes, and the human species’ increasing power to exist, relative to the whole universe with which the human cognitive processes are interacting efficiently. The second, emphasizes the relatively nominalist standpoint of formal logic, placing mankind as observer of the mere representation of the sense-perceptual actuality.

Thus, economic science requires, that the young members of society enjoy a quality of education which emphasizes reenacting validated original discoveries of physical principle and Classical art-forms, as opposed to merely learning approved representations and procedures. Hence, the functional significance of the difference between knowledge and mere learning. In economy, the essential requirement, is that the persons employed in the economic process must be capable of revolutionizing that process. This latter efficiency is fostered by that quality of education, in which the pupil reenacts validated original discoveries of principle, instead of merely learning “the right answer,” without going through the experience of reenacting the discovery. The Classical humanist form of education, as opposed to the mind-destructive modes which have become almost universal within U.S. education today, addresses the most fundamental principle of a science of physical-economy. Any brand of economic teaching which ignores this principle, such as that of Adam Smith or Karl Marx, is intrinsically a hoax.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Economic science requires that the young members of society enjoy a quality of education that emphasizes the individual person’s developable, unique, and sovereign cognitive processes. Shown here are Schiller Institute summer campers concertizing in Leesburg, Virginia in 1985.

---------------------------------------------

The LaRouche-Riemann Principle

Although my original intention in challenging Wiener’s “information theory” hoax,[fn_21] was not aimed at so ambitious a result, by late 1951, it was clear to me that we must redefine the meaning of the term “science,” contrary to generally accepted, pro-Aristotelean, academic usages at that time. This was not a redefinition in merely the dictionary sense of the term, but, rather, a new functional sense of scientific practice in general. “Science” could not be defined as the sum of mankind’s experimental observations of nature. To eliminate the source of most of the monstrous errors promulgated as generally accepted classroom notions of “science,” it was indispensable to discard entirely the pro-Aristotelean delusion of “scientific objectivity.” Science must be understood, functionally, not merely in terms of validated physical principles, but, rather, subjectively: in terms of the adducible characteristics of those individual cognitive processes, within whose sovereign domain all validated discoveries of principle were generated as otherwise impossible solutions to a devastating paradox in the existing state of established scientific belief. We must understand, that what crucial experimental methods do, is to validate those types of cognitive processes which generate experimentally validatable discoveries of physical principle.

The key to this proposed, improved functional notion of “science,” and of scientific method, lies within the science of physical economy as Leibniz had defined it, and as I had freshly defined it at that point in my work. When the economies of entire nations, or, better, humanity generally, are considered as indivisible entireties, the anti-entropic form of increase of the potential relative population-density of a society, is a measure of mankind’s increase of our species’ per-capita power over nature.[fn_22]

This relationship, between the society and the universe at large, is rooted in the referenced distinctions of the individual person’s, developable, sovereign cognitive processes, the unique role of those individual cognitive processes in generating (or, replicating the generation of) discoveries of principle, such as validatable discoveries of physical principle. This defines the individual’s, and the relevant society’s potential relationship to nature, a potential reflected as increase of potential relative population-density. However, the actual relationship of society to nature, is located within the structured social relations which shape the effective relations, respecting ideas for practice, among the sovereign cognitive processes of the individual members of society as a whole.

If we consider the individual cognitive processes and these structured social relations as the subjective side of man’s relations to nature at large, we can match this subjective side with the adequacy of the array of physical principles, and the rate of change of that latter array. Thus, the functional relations between man and nature must be conceptualized. That is the required basis for a functional notion of the term “science.”

This combination of interacting subjective and physical development, defines the scope and content of the science of physical economy, both as Leibniz founded it during the 1671-1716 interval of his life’s work, and as I have reconstructed it in connection with my refutation of the “information theory” hoax.

To address this consideration, we must now pause, as promised above, to bring certain readers into the picture. This includes, notably, those who were victims of the influence of “New Math” and kindred pedagogical obscenities, during their secondary and university education.

We have referenced a term here, “LaRouche-Riemann Method.” Since Riemann was born ninety-four years before my birth, and died nearly seventy years before I took up the study of Gottfried Leibniz’s work: Why “LaRouche-Riemann”; why not “Riemann-LaRouche”? Two important considerations demand that the former, and not the latter, must be used in an intelligible representation of the content of this discovery. The first, relatively simpler point, is that after I had made a set of discoveries of principle, I then recognized that Riemann’s work supplied the necessary clues for solving those problems of measurement posed by my earlier discoveries.[fn_23] The second consideration, is a far more profound one, a consideration on which I have reported in various published locations, including my October 2, 1996 “The Essential Role of ’Time-Reversal’ in Mathematical Economics.”[fn_24] The most efficient route to understanding both of the notions underlying the usage “LaRouche-Riemann Method,” begins with the subject of the student’s pre-science grounding in Classical Euclidean geometry.

Although any relatively sound representation of Euclidean geometry to secondary pupils, will suffice to provide a foundation for intelligent discussion of the elementary issues of scientific method, no further comprehension of the subject could be realized without reference to the implications of Plato’s dialectical method in shaping the origins of Euclid’s geometry, and in enabling us to proceed from that geometry, to higher ones: to physical geometries.

The entire collection of Plato’s dialogues must be studied, not only for the particular topics addressed, but for the single method which underlies each and all among them: the Socratic dialectical method.24, [fn_25] Ask the question: Whence are derived the kinds of definitions, axioms, and postulates which underlie a formal Euclidean geometry? The Socratic method demonstrates the answer. The Socratic dialectical method exposes a rigorous approach to “smoking out” otherwise hidden assumptions, assumptions treated naively as if they were “self-evident,” assumptions underlying the choices between propositions which are believed, and those which are not. Euclidean geometry, is thus largely a product of the Socratic dialectical method, which was developed, through the Hellenistic and Roman periods, under the continuing influence of Plato’s Academy of Athens. This, so viewed, is the exemplar of all formal systems of thought which are premised implicitly upon propositions sharing a common basis in a single set of definitions, axioms, and postulates.

The application of this same Socratic dialectical method, of Plato, to that geometry itself, led to discovery of new, superior geometries. The most significant such discoveries began with the seminal work founding modern experimental physical science, the De docta ignorantia of a chief organizer of the 1439-1440 Council of Florence, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa.[fn_26]

Left: Engraving by C.A. Forestier

Left: Lazare Carnot; right: Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss

---------------------------------------------

Cusa’s work on the matter of methods for experimental development of physical science, led directly to the work of such among his explicit followers as Luca Pacioli, Leonardo da Vinci, and Johannes Kepler. This work, together with the added materials supplied from Pacioli, Leonardo, and Kepler, was the common foundation of such Seventeenth-Century leaders in science as Blaise Pascal, Christiaan Huyghens, and Gottfried Leibniz. That approach, as enriched by, and reflected within the labors of, most notably, Lazare Carnot, Carl Gauss, and Bernhard Riemann, served as the guide to my own work in the science of physical economy.

The vicious fallacy in permitting the replacement of competent mathematics instruction by the so-called “New Math,” is demonstrated by the fact that the “New Math” evades the existence of the most important issues of geometry in particular, and mathematics in general. These are the same issues indispensable for access to higher geometries.

Modern science has shown, that the principal errors of assumption of Classical geometry, are the following:

1. That geometry presumed, in error,that its axiomatic notions of space and time were self-evident principles of the universe, existing independently of any experimental proof.

2. The prevailing, erroneous axiomatic presumption among Aristotelean, neo-Aristotelean, and other philosophically reductionist commentators on this geometry, was that extension in space and time was perfectly continuous as a matter of principle. In other words, that linear extension could be subdivided infinitely to such a degree that no margin for existence of discontinuity could occur within perfect extension.

Although the first comprehensive refutation of these two errors was supplied by Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation, Riemann’s discovery was implicit in much of the work of Plato and his followers, such as Eratosthenes. The most devastating event in refuting perfectly continuous extension, appeared in Cusa’s De docta ignorantia, as Cusa’s discovery of the fact that pi was not the type of incommensurable which Archimedes’ quadrature had presumed it to be, but of a higher type, named later “transcendental.”[fn_27] The error of the assumptions of Descartes, Newton, et al., on this account, was addressed by Leibniz, who used both the issue of the catenary (“hanging chain”) curve, and the Huyghens-Roemer-Leibniz-Bernoulli proofs of the isochronic characteristics of refraction of light,[fn_28] to show that a mathematics derived simply from Euclidean presumptions of extension and continuity could not map the reality of the physical universe.

For a student who is well-grounded in both Euclid and Plato, understanding of the matter is more or less readily accessed. The shift to a “New Math” program of instruction, has devastating, disastrous effects, on this account. The use of the radical demands of Bertrand Russell’s Principia Mathematica, in the manner the “New Math” ideology does so, arbitrarily denies the existence of the crucial, ontological problems of Classical geometry: the false presumption, that extension in space and time is simply, self-evidently, both linear and perfectly continuous. All fundamental progress in modern science is premised on efficient acknowledgement of the reality, that space- time extension is neither self-evidently linear, nor perfectly continuous.

If the student is able to recognize this issue, an understanding of the relevant problems is reasonably well charted. Lacking that recognition, comprehension is most difficult, if not impossible.

This same recognition provides us the proper distinction between a lunatic sort of “ivory tower” mathematics (including making a virtual god of statistical methods), and physical science.

The lunatic presumes that the appearance of the physical universe is something given to us by an “ivory tower” type of mathematics, that the laws of the universe can be derived, as Russell insisted, in the Principia Mathematica, as elsewhere, from a mathematics as he defined it. In contrast to the hesychast from the ivory-tower mathematicians’s virtual space- time, the scientist, such as Riemann, insists, that the function of mastering mathematics is to perfect one’s ability to construct an appropriate, previously non-existent mathematics, on the occasion of any validatable discovery of physical principle which refutes the assumptions of a previously adopted mathematical physics.

Wikimedia Commons

Bernhard Riemann

---------------------------------------------

Riemann’s crucial breakthrough on this account, was to assail the previously persisting delusion, that extension in space and time were self-evident notions, rather than, as they are now shown to have been, principles subject to the tests of experimental validation. For example: for Riemann, as for Carl Gauss and Wilhelm Weber, the proof, by Weber, of the existence of the Ampère “longitudinal force” in electrodynamics, already sufficed to demonstrate the non-existence of linearity in the microphysically small. As Riemann insisted, it is in the domains of the very large (astrophysics) and very small (microphysics) than we must anticipate violations of the naive notions of linearized extension in space and time.

Out of the combined work of Leibniz, Gauss, and Riemann (most notably), a refined general principle of experimental physical science emerges. In modern agro-industrial economy, this development falls naturally into the domain of the economic tradition of France’s Jean-Baptiste Colbert (Leibniz’s sometime sponsor) and one among Leibniz’s more notable followers in science, France’s Lazare Carnot. The essential task of a theory of knowledge,[fn_29] is to define the means by which the appropriately developed cognitive processes of the individual mind, react to ontological contradictions (metaphors) by generating experimentally validatable new principles of nature and cognition itself.

For this purpose, we must represent the process of physical-scientific progress in terms of successive generations of valid new physical principles. Thus, as this case has been identified above, we must represent scientific knowledge, by an ordered sequence of successively more powerful hypotheses, using the term “hypothesis” here, in the Platonic sense, as typified by a coherent set of definitions, axioms, and postulates in a Euclidean geometry. In this image, the sequence is to be defined by the efficient principle which generates that succession of hypotheses.

That principle is the efficient principle expressed by successful generation of validatable new principles. For this purpose, it is convenient to describe the process of generating the discovery of such a new principle as a four-step process:

1. The posing of an ontological paradox. This is representable in communication as a paradoxical, confrontational juxtaposition of valid new empirical evidence with that empirically validated, previously established system of belief, which implicitly prohibits the existence of the new evidence considered.

2. The generation of an experimentally testable new principle which generates a new system of belief consistent with all the evidence. This action, which occurs behind the opaque screen of sovereignty of the individual’s cognitive processes, is not representable in any system of communication.

3. The statement of a proposed principle of solution, expressed in terms of the paradox addressed. This is representable.

4. The experimental design, which tests the efficiency of the discovered principle. This is representable.

It is the second of those four steps which is troublesome. Although it is not directly representable in any deductive system, including a mathematics, is it knowable through the replication of the same four-step act of discovery by other minds, such as those of students. Furthermore, the accuracy of the experience of those minds, is verifiable in terms of the implications of the four-step replication. Thus, it is, contrary to empiricist and positivist dogma, a knowable conception, or, what Plato identifies by the term idea. In other words, persons who have replicated that discovery within their own minds, know that discovery as step two of the four-step process identified here. They may then use words, or other representable expressions to identify, by reference, the existence of that idea as the subject of their thought.

CC/Marie-Lan Nguyen (2006)

Plato

---------------------------------------------

For scientific progress, it is not a defect, but rather a superlative advantage, in such an idea, that it can not be derived by means of grammar, or any deductive device. Since the discovery of validatable principle which resolves an ontological contradiction is truthful, those who condemns ideas, as Plato defines ideas, are persons incapable of truthfulness, and therefore most untrustworthy types of scientists.

Similarly, a competent performance of a Classical musical composition can not be accomplished by a literal reading of a printed score. In Classical composition, as opposed to the bang-bang parodies of musicality, the musical idea is of exactly the same metaphorical origin as a discovery of a validatable new physical principle. The musical idea is located in the equivalent of our Step Two of a cognitive process, here. The same principle reigns in all Classical forms of plastic and non-plastic art. It is within these qualities of idea, that our essential humanity lies, that we exist as made in the image of God.

In science, of course, the obvious point, is that these ideas are the most efficient power in all human practice. Thus, they are superbly real, far more real than any mere object of sense-perception. All efficient physical principles are of this same ontological quality.

In Plato, the process of generating successively more powerful hypotheses, by what we have represented as a four-step cognitive action, is referenced as an efficient, and knowable principle (idea) of higher hypothesis. That is to say, that the development of the creative powers of the cognitive processes of the student, through the successive acts of recreating discoveries by the indicated four-step method, rather than merely learning those discoveries in a text-book fashion, trains the cognitive processes to attack ontological paradoxes in a certain fashion. This developed method of attack, as expressed through successively successful applications, represents, thus, a knowable idea. This quality of knowable idea corresponds to the notion of higher hypothesis. The generalization of the improvement in higher hypothesis, provides the idea corresponding to Plato’s “hypothesizing the higher hypothesis,” the cognitive aspect of Plato’s principle of “Becoming.”

Thus, in this light, science becomes the matter of organizing the mental and related activities of groups of scientists and others, around a task-oriented process—a mission—of perpetuating scientific progress, in this sense, as a series of successively more powerful hypotheses represents such progress.

This brings us to the second point, the matter of “time-reversal.”

Let us agree to describe propositions which are not-inconsistent with any among the definitions, axioms, and postulates of a formal hypothesis as theorems of that hypotheses. Thus, we have, corresponding to a fixed such hypothesis, an expandable array of theorems so defined: a theorem-lattice. Within such lattices, there is an associated notion of sequence. For example, the fact that the derivation of some proposition is conditional upon the preceding derivation of another proposition, represents a sequence. This is the epistemological form in which the notion of “time” appears, not as a self-evident, linear form of extension, but, rather, as a relative form of extension rooted in experimental physical science, rather than a merely formal mathematics.

In contrast, an hypothesis exists, relative to its theorem-lattice, as independent of time, as seemingly “eternal.”

Hence, in the adoption of an hypothesis, we have implicitly adopted the past, present, and future propositions, theorems, events, etc., implicit in it. The case for higher hypothesis is an analogous one. Hence, the decisions we make in generating validatable principles of nature, have the form of letting the future consequences of our actions guide our present actions: apparent time-reversal.

Such is the notion of laws of the universe. To the degree our perception of such laws is accurate to within a given number of future centuries, millennia, and so forth, the corresponding future, acting through us, is acting upon the present. This appears to be “teleology,” but, as we shall now indicate, a far different type of teleology than that which is sometimes brushed against, briefly, in the undergraduate philosophy semester.

Engraving by C. Barth, 1859

Johannes Kepler

---------------------------------------------

Kepler & the ‘Three-Body Problem’

There are two points of caution to be emphasized at this juncture. First, we must consider the possibility, that not only do mankind’s notions of laws of the universe change, but, that the laws of the universe themselves may change in a more or less analogous manner. No sane scientist would be so reckless as to propose either a “Big Bang” creation, or a universe according to Hoyle: except, as he, or she presented such a thesis in the form of a question, such as: “Let us ask ourselves why some people are lured into adopting a piece of cosmic dogma as absurd at this? What, ladies and gentlemen, is the fallacy which is expressing itself in the putting-forward of such absurdities?”

Consider the setting for what is frequently identified as the “three-body problem.”

The idea of a universal gravitation was introduced by Johannes Kepler in 1609, in his The New Astronomy. This was a notion which he linked, there, to the phenomenon of magnetism.[fn_30] Kepler derived an expression for gravitation from his famous three laws. Newton and his associates later plagiarized this, Kepler’s discovery of gravitation, and derived the famous Newtonian “law of gravitation” as an algebraic manipulation of Kepler’s original formulation.[fn_31]

The seemingly curious result of the English empricists’ plagiarism is, that Kepler’s notion of the ordering of the solar system worked, but Newton’s plagiarized, reductionist, algebraic derivation did not. The failure of Isaac Newton’s method is a paradox known as “the three-body problem.” The solution to that paradox follows from the seemingly “teleological” argument we have outlined immediately above.

The crucial issue permeating that paradox is the popular classroom fallacy identified as echoing Thomas Hobbes’ implied ideological blind faith in the existence of linearization in the infinitesimally small.[fn_32] To be as brief as the subject itself permits, consider the following question.

Reference the example of Eratosthenes’ estimate for the implied size of the Earth, from his estimating the circumference of the Earth from the curvature of a measured interval along the measured distance of the meridian-line between Syene and Alexandria in Egypt. Compare this with the method developed, and employed by Carl Gauss, to demonstrate that the newly discovered heavenly body, Ceres, was an asteroid with the harmonic orbital characteristics which Kepler had specified for a missing planet’s orbit, between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. Compare this with a generalized notion of curved surfaces developed for astrophysics, geodesy, and geomagnetism, by Gauss. The question is, can we infer the trajectory of the entirety of a lawful motion from the curvature of an observed small interval of that trajectory? Or, in the alternative: is the orbit determined, from instant to instant, by the mechanical (e.g., “Newtonian”) interaction of bodies and related forces?

Kepler’s argument, derived from the line of thinking of such adopted predecessors as Nicholas of Cusa, Luca Pacioli, and Leonardo da Vinci, was that the lawful orbits of the solar system were predetermined as knowable pre-orderings. In Kepler’s work, this notion underwent expression in differing forms. However, throughout, his principle was that these orderings, which we might associate with the principle of Analysis Situs, expressed an efficiently underlying, not-entropic principle. On this account, the entirety of his astrophysics coheres with the view, that it is feasible, on principle, to derive a measured curvature of a lawful orbit within a very small interval of observation, to such effect that we can adduce the entirety of that trajectory from the characteristic curvature of least action in that small interval.

This is the same method underlying the mathematical tactic developed by Gauss, by means of which he solved the orbit of Ceres.

In other words, the determination of the apparent change (curvature) in a lawfully-determined trajectory, as distinct from a kinematically determined one, is of the order of an higher hypothesis, relative to any single hypothesis governing a mechanical approximation of a portion of that trajectory.

Now, turn immediately to the case of the characteristic curvature of interaction of the human species with the universe at large. As we have indicated, the characteristic action, which distinguishes the human species from the higher apes, is the anti-entropic impact of the generation of a validatable principle within what we have located as Step Two of the Four-Step process of discovery of such a principle. This represents a change of curvature, distinguishing the human species absolutely from all other species. This determines the specific physical-space-time curvature of the human species’ existence.

This curvature is located immediately in the very small: within the cognitive processes of an individual mind, within a monad.

The same principle serves us, as it distinguishes particular processes which are living, from particular processes which are not. What is the difference between the characteristic of a carbon atom as a functional part of a living process, as distinct from the same carbon atom which has moved on to become part of a non-living process. Categorically, consider the distinction between anti-entropic and entropic processes as a matter of “curvature” in the Gauss-Riemann sense of that term.

Consider another useful illustration of the issue, before turning directly to the relevance of this to the subject of “environmentalism.”

Consider the rather commonplace, fallacious argument, that thermonuclear fusion of like-charged material is fatally resisted by mutually repulsive “Coulomb Forces” in the vicinity of atomic- nuclear distances. On what authority is it asserted, that the simple “Coulomb Force” operates throughout the atomic-nuclear scale as it is appears to act on the macro scale? Wilhelm Weber’s successful demonstration of the efficiency of an electrodynamical agency called the “longitudinal force,” more than a hundred years ago, had already shown that the assumptions usually attributed to the “Coulomb Force” do not operate in that same fashion once a certain smallness of distance from the nucleus has been reached.

In the very small and the very large, the universe operates differently than it appears to at the macro scale. For example, the simple “Coulomb Force” does not operate throughout the atomic-nuclear scale as it appears to act on the macro scale. Past assumptions about the “Coulomb Force” do not operate once a certain smallness of distance from the atomic nucleus has been reached. Positively-charged atomic nuclei will repel each other, until they have sufficient energy and fuse, releasing an enormous amount of energy. Shown is an image of the Sun undergoing continuous fusion reactions.

---------------------------------------------

From many analogous examples, it should have been clear to all serious scientific thinkers, centuries before this time, that lawful physical principles are expressed as such, in manners which suggest that the present action according to such a principle of lawfulness, functions as if it were a response to a future state of that same process. In other words, from the kinematic standpoint of the empiricist or materialist, it must appear to the alarmed empiricist or materialist ideologue, that forces are also acting through time-reversal as we might imagine forces to be acting, contrarily, in the present, to generate future states.

This paradox is demystified, immediately we introduce the notion of higher hypothesis. Relative to any sequential mathematical scheme cohering with a consistent hypothesis, the relevant hypothesis is operating with relatively equal efficiency, simultaneously, in past, present, and future. Relative to any ordered sequences of hypotheses, or of the changes in physical states corresponding to such sequences of hypotheses, the implied higher hypothesis is fixed as operating, simultaneously, and efficiently, in past, present, and future. Look at the Crab Nebula, for example, with regard to the anomalous case of the attributed speed-of-light distances among the component points of that coherently changing object.

NASA/ESA/CXC/JPL-Caltech/STScI/Hester, Loll, Gehrz

Composite image of the Crab Nebula, as imaged by NASA telescopes.

---------------------------------------------

Is this merely the present author’s conjecture? Not at all. It would appear to be merely conjecture, only if one commits the blunder of accepting Aristotle’s fraudulent notion of the detached observer. Once we recognize that scientific knowledge is obtained, not by contemplating the universe, but by studying how we may generate those thoughts which enable us to efficiently act to change the universe, then the principles of cognition underlying the discovery of lawful physical principles, are the epistemological basis for defining the underlying determination of validatable physical laws.

Examples from Physical Economy

Pedagogically, the simplest and clearest, experimental demonstrations of the issues and principles, are from my field of specialization, the domain of the science of physical economy. The most economical choices of examples, reference five historical cases: The revolutionary reconstitution of France by King Louis XI (1461-1483); the first science-driver model of economic growth, that directed by France’s Minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert; the invention of the steam-powered industrial revolution, by Gottfried Leibniz, during his work of 1671-1716; the 1792-1814 science-driver “crash program” devised and directed by France’s Leibnizian, Lazare Carnot, the originator of the machine-tool industry, and his former teacher and collaborator Gaspard Monge of the 1794-1814 École Polytechnique; and, the American model of modern industrial economy, the most successful form of economy developed to the present date, that 1861-1876 development, devised by economist Henry Carey, begun under President Abraham Lincoln, and successfully introduced to Japan, Germany, and Russia during the 1870s. For our purposes here, we sum up the principles adducible from the Carey-Lincoln, updated version of that Franklin-Hamilton model of the Leibnizian “American System of political-economy,” the updated version developed in the 1861-1876 U.S.A., and then copied by Germany and Russia, in cooperation with Henry C. Carey, beginning 1876. Again, that latter was the model which made the U.S. economy the most powerful nation-state economy of the world, and the technologically most advanced, during the course of the 1861-1876 industrial revolution.[fn_33]

Henry C. Carey’s ideas of the American System of Political Economy fostered the greatest industrial revolution the world had seen. Shown below is the Corliss Centennial Engine in 1876.

---------------------------------------------

In the course of summarizing that point, we bring the discussion to focus on two crucial expressions of policies which have destroyed the U.S. economy and popular culture, including a correlated general degeneration in religious culture, during the recent thirty-odd years. We come to those cases at the appropriate point below.

The secret of the highest rates of progress in conditions of life of a nation and its population, is typified by the program of the Ecole Polytechnique under Gaspard Monge’s direction. The center of that program was the education of what were named “brigades” of adolescent students, producing, thus, the most advanced and powerful center of scientific and engineering work in the world up to that time. For the key to this success, refer to the Four-Step model of original discovery and education, which I have outlined above. Refer also, to Lazare Carnot’s invention of the machine-tool principle of high-precision mass-production, which France’s “Organizer of Victory” Carnot introduced, during 1792-1794, to effect the rout of all of the armies invading France at that time, and to suddenly, during that two-year period, establish the armies of France as the most powerful and technologically most advanced in the world at that time.

Trace the combined role of a Four-Step model of Classical secondary and higher education and the machine-tool-design principle, within the setting of the Carey-Lincoln economic revolution of 1861-1876 and its emulation by Germany and by the Mendelyeev-Witte faction of industrial development in 1876-1905 Russia. Compare this to Franklin Roosevelt’s economic revolution during World War II, and with the German-American aerospace program of the 1945-1966 interval.[fn_34] See accompanying Figure 1, a flow-chart outlining the principles of a machine-tool-design driven economy.

Figure 1

How the Machine-Tool Principle Is Situated

Howard R. Hollem

B24E (Liberator) bomber production at the Ford Willow Run plant during World War II.

---------------------------------------------

It is the development of the (creative) cognition of the individual student’s mind, through repeated experiences of the type described by the Four-Step method, which enables those students to focus the thus-developed creative powers corresponding to Step Two, for the solution to problems posed in the form of an ontological paradox of science, or a metaphor of Classical art-forms.[fn_35] As Figure 1 portrays, that generation of validated discoveries of principle, which occurs as a product and, largely, a by-product of such Classical-humanist modes of secondary and higher education, produces both a flourishing of new machine-tool-design principles, and also a highly adaptive labor-force, capable of mastering the newly introduced technologies.

That example typifies the fact, that a sustainable net profit of a national economy is generated only through the anti-entropic impact of this, or related modes of proliferation and investment in the benefits of scientific and technological progress. The agency which generates that realized anti-entropy, is the agency expressed as Step Two of the Four-Step process.

This agency, this sovereign cognitive potential of the individual person, is the location of that which defines man and woman as each made in the image of God. The passion associated with the kind of creative activity represented by Step Two, is termed agapē in the Classical Greek of Plato and the Apostle Paul. Paul’s I Corinthians 13, exemplifies that principle as at the center of all Christianity. Christianity is love of agapē, both agapē as the passion of characteristically, distinctive human activity (i.e., creative cognition), and fostering of that quality which is “made in the image of God,” agapē, within each human being.

In contrast, it is fair to describe social theories such as the definitions of “human nature” by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Bernard Mandeville, and Adam Smith, as satanic. The idea of “free trade,” or, as François Quesnay terms it, laissez-faire, is best understood by recognizing it as a relic of Manicheanism, the Bogomil form of Manicheanism most notably. This represents a denial of the efficient existence of that which defines the individual as “made in image of God,” creative cognition, and the substitution of lusty bestial alternatives, such as the Seven Deadly Sins, for agapē, in the ordering of the interpersonal behavior of society. So, “free trade,” is nothing other the doctrine Mandeville and his devotee von Hayek described it to be; they insist, that good comes only from giving unrestricted license to evil. For them, there is nothing in man, but the linear extension of those passions which are associated with the Seven Deadly Sins. The essence of Friedrich von Hayek’s satanic definition of “freedom,” were best described by the motto, “Let the inner sow loose!”

Thus, as institutionalized practice shapes the expressed “curvature” of the individual person in society, so, we determine the characteristic feature of the trajectory which the history of that society will follow.

Look at the general principle once again, in light of that example from the domain of political-economy.

In determining the nature of the lawful interactions among ostensibly non-living, living, and cognitive processes, we must proceed by recognizing that these processes are distinguished from one another in terms of differing characteristic physical-space-time curvatures, notably in their infinitesimally small intervals of action. If one, then, proposes to define an interaction among processes of such characteristically, mutually distinct curvatures, by use of “models” which arbitrarily presume mechanistically linear interactions in the very small, the resulting calculation can be guaranteed to be absurd, totally false to reality.

Notably, if one projects “environmental” calculations which leave out the role of human cognition in the technological development of economy, the resulting judgment on the relations between man and nature will be totally false to reality. The spread of disease, as a result of the banning of DDT, the increase of morbidity rates in populations around the world, as a result of impact of the “Ozone Hole” hoax on refrigeration of the food-delivery again, and the threatened accelerated increase of death-rates, globally, from the “Global Warning” fraud, are warnings of the dangers involved in linearizing thinking about the living processes.

It is more than fair to sum up that point, respecting the fallacy of linearization, thus: If one assesses the impact of economy upon ecology, by reference to any of the generally accepted varieties of classroom economics doctrine today, the resulting conclusion is necessarily a fraudulent one.

In The Matter of Proof

In the matter of what might be termed carelessly “environmental science,” there are two broad classifications.

One, is the standard of scientific proof generally accepted by specialists in the relevant fields prior to 1962-1972. Proofs from this quarter may have their problematic features, but the standard of practice from that period was “within the ball-park” of truthfulness and competence. This standard worked, not because the mathematics employed was particularly good; it worked, usually, despite bad mathematical models, because the standard applied for purposes of policy shaping, was that of crucial experimental demonstration of principle, rather than reliance on mathematical models as such.

The second standard, is the ideological one associated with the influential “1001 Club” which was established under Britain’s consort Prince Philip and the Netherlands drone Prince Bernhard, as adjuncts to the 1961 founding of the World Wildlife Fund. The prescriptions of this second standard, are usually not merely incompetent, but outright hoaxes. Three prominent examples of such frauds are those just cited above: Rachel Carson’s fraudulent allegations against DDT—for which no scientific proof was ever supplied, F. Sherwood Rowland’s “Ozone Hole” hoax, and the “Global Warming” hoax.

One of the most revealing case-studies is found in the campaigns against the use of nuclear fission as a source of energy. In response to the critics’ question: Whence shall we secure the needed energy-supplies to replace nuclear-fission sources, the replies by the anti-nuclear propagandists were invariably either frauds or simply the foolish babbling of wild-eyed illiterates.

The most crucial, rule-of-thumb parameters for defining the principal energy-sources of society, are power per kilogram of fuel, and “energy-flux density” in the available mode of generation of usable power. That is, in the latter case, the amount of usable energy-flow passing through a cross-sectional area per second. Kilowatts per square centimeter, is one such rule-of-thumb measurement. This is a notion as old as the Ecole Polytechnique’s Sadi Carnot, and as durable. The higher, and the more coherent the organization of the energy-flux-density, the more efficient the energy-flow per watt-hour transmitted.

The issue is not simply crude heat-efficiency, but the relationship of energy-flux-density in the very small to threshhold values for certain types of physical reactions. Thus, the level of technology, and thus of average productive powers of labor, which could be achieved, is constrained by considerations of energy-flux-density, related considerations of coherence, and so forth.

Presented here are the different energy densities of the various forms of “fire” discovered by man. The pitches of the cones represent the energy-density, and the apexes are the time of discovery and introduction of that particular technology. As a higher cone reaches the previous one, the old technology becomes eclipsed in its use in the economy. Both the rate of discovery, and the relative energy ratios are increasing dramatically. While two millennia separated the introduction of petroleum from that of coal, with a doubling of energy density, it took only one century before the introduction of nuclear power, with a thousand-fold increase in energy density!

---------------------------------------------

Today, for example, in physics generally, the forseeable future improvements in energy-sources, are, first, successive generations of improvement in controlled thermonuclear fusion, and, second, the calculably still-higher orders of energy- density, if it proves possible to control a matter/anti-matter reaction as an energy-source in, for example, inter-solar-system and stellar explorations.

In these matters, the political proponents of “soft” energy-supplies are illiterate fanatics. Politically, they are dangerous llliterates. They typify a society which has substituted the “encounter group’s” notion of “sensitivity,” for both truthfulness and even sanity. In other words, they are essentially immoral people. If they are to be judged “sincere,” then one must say that they are as “sincerely immoral,” as, perhaps, the followers of Satan should be.

British Duke of Edinburgh Prince Philip (left) and Dutch Prince Bernhard helped found the World Wildlife Fund in 1961.

---------------------------------------------

Certainly, among the principal authors of the modern “anti-technology” cults, British Consort Prince Philip, the 1961 cofounder of the World Wildlife Fund and “1001 Club,” is utterly evil, as also the Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, the other cofounder, who took time on the day of his wedding to a Dutch princess, to sign, “Heil Hitler,” in a letter of resignation from the Nazi SS, which he sent personally, directly to Nazi Führer Adolf Hitler. Over the recent decades, such would-be Mephistopheles have succeeded in recruiting a large number of would-be Fausts. To wit:

Generally, through the influence of foundations and other ideologically motivated institutions fitting the same paradigm as the “1001 Club,” a kind of industry of environmentalist hoaxes has been established. Graduate students and others have found that the easy way to make a living, is to go on the payroll of an institution which wishes to have putative scientific support for one or more of these “environmentalist” hoaxes.

Rowland is notable, not only because his personal celebrity was built around such corrupt practices, but because he typifies the way in which computer technology has been misused, as a substitute for science, in the concocting of the fraudulent studies produced by professionals who have prostituted themselves to making their careers as the equivalent of call-girls or street-walkers in this manner. The fact that this corrupt practice has proliferated as long as it has, lends to the “environmentalist” juvenile delinquents of yesterday’s pseudo-science that bit of balding and touch of snow in the thatch which is too often mistaken by the credulous onlooker, for sign of mature judgment. Through the personal success of Rowland, and the growing cheapness of modern personal computers, the “Ozone Hole” hoax has made the fraud of the “computer model” the fashion leader of the “environmentalist” industry.

When a person has become immoral, in such ways as we have indicated here, it is not required that we also prove them corrupt. To call the Devil wicked, it is not necessary to prove that he takes bribes. In response to the thought expressed by one questioner, doubtless a commonplace thought: to prove that Satan is evil, it is not necessary to discover that he, or a slave-owner, for example, has been bought.

Let us conclude with a relevant observation on that concluding topic, the topic of wickedness. Too often, when a horrifying type of crime has been committed, too many speculate on what they imagine might have been the motive of Hobbesian or Lockean “self-interest” which might have motivated the perpetrator to such hideous extremes. The exemplary word of caution to those who dupe themselves into playing such parlor games, is the fact, that sometimes a killer kills because he enjoys killing, and kills in an extraordinarily nasty way, because his impulse will not be gratified otherwise. Sometimes it is less that the victim has evoked hate, than that hate has sought out a convenient victim for its expression. No one kills out of “impersonal motives,” and in times when the greatest degree of evil is afoot, it is increasingly the case, that malice arises from perceived issues of “self-interest,” less and less often, than the expression of malice has become, in itself, the perpetrator’s “self-interest.”

Many environmentalists are honestly illiterates, of whom we might say, “They know no better.” Many, like most of the “radicals” of the 1964-1968 campus ferment, were brainwashed into what they became, because of the explosions of lability, suggestibility, and desire for flight from reality, induced by such triggering factors as the 1962 missiles-crisis, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the nightly horror of TV footage from Vietnam, and the murder of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. However, those, such as Princes Philip and Bernhard, or Dame Margaret Mead, who preyed upon these victims, in order to induce in these unfortunates the aberrant states, were purely evil persons, whose motivation was malice per se.

In any case, when the habit of rejecting truthfulness becomes a functional state of mind, the condition of moral corruption has already taken command of that personality. That evil mind then needs no special consideration to be prompted to express the quality which that mind had acquired.

[fn_1]. Rogelio A. Maduro and Ralf Schauerhammer, The Holes in the Ozone Scare: The Scientific Evidence That the Sky Isn’t Falling, 21st Century Science Associates, Washington, D.C., 1992. [back to text for fn_1]

[fn_2]. ibid. [back to text for fn_2]

[fn_3]. The “politically correct” language codes introduced at some leading, present-day universities, typify of contemporary definitions of “political correctness” cum “mainstream opinion,” and recall George Orwell’s fictional Animal Farm and 1984. The non-fictional, real-life precedent for the today’s “mainstream opinion” was the Josef Goebbels’ Nazi Propaganda Ministry. [back to text for fn_3]

[fn_4]. As I emphasized to my students in each of the courses on economics which I taught at sundry campuses during 1966-1973, Marx noted that his “model” excluded consideration of “the technical composition of capital;” that “exclusion” is the formal root of the fallacy of his models of “extended reproduction” and “falling rate of profit.” That admission reflects his exclusion of the relevant cognitive principle from his scrutiny. The use of the term “Manichean,” to identify Hobbes, Adam Smith, the Mont Pelerin Society, et al., is neither simile, nor hyperbole; from Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan onward, the entirety of the English and British empiricist and the Franco-Austrian positivist doctrine for economics, is derived explicitly from the continuing influence of the notorious, neo-Manichean, Bogomil cult in the region of Toulouse and the Rhone. Bernard de Mandeville’s Fable of the Bees, the official “Old Testament” of Friedrich von Hayek’s Mont Pelerin Society, is explicit in its translation of Hobbes’ “each in war against all,” into that doctrine, that good comes spontaneously from awarding evil practices the license of laissez-faire. Like all varieties of Manicheanism, the premise of the argument of Hobbes, John Locke, Bernard Mandeville, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, John von Neumann, and others, is that Satan rules the universe of the flesh (the material realm), while God (pending some Judgment Day) is confined to the smaller, ineffable realm of spiritual life, within the person, family, and church. Hence, the argument of these Manicheans, such as U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, that no moral purpose must be superimposed upon Satan’s church, “the marketplace” of Michael Novak’s economics theology. [back to text for fn_4]

[fn_5]. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “The Coming Pearl Harbor Effect,” Executive Intelligence Review, Sept. 12, 1997. [back to text for fn_5]

[fn_6]. ibid. Also, Hartmut Thieme, “Lower Paleolithic Hunting Spears From Germany,” Nature, Vol. 385, February 27, 1997, p. 807. [back to text for fn_6]

[fn_7]. The term, “LaRouche-Riemann Model,” was introduced at a November 1978, New York City meeting of representatives of both Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) and the Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF). The topic of that meeting was the securing of declassified Soviet reports which showed that the Soviet design for the “hydrogen bomb” had relied upon the principles of isentropic compression derived from Bernhard Riemann’s “Über die Fortflanzung ebener Luftwellen von endlicher Schwingungsweite,” [Bernhard Riemanns Gesammelte Mathematische Werke, H. Weber, ed. (Dover Publications reprint, New York, 1953), hereinafter identified as Riemanns Werke: pp.156-175]. The focus of the discussion was the stubborn adherence to doctrines axiomatically premised upon the absurd axiomatic presumption of linearization in the infinitesimally small, prevailing among otherwise gifted circles of leading plasma physicists and others engaged in aspects of fusion-energy development. Into this discussion, the present writer pointed out two suggested practical considerations. First, that the Riemannian shock-wave effect is also characteristic of the domain of physical economies, where it is expressed in transitions to higher technological domains, and, also, collapses into lower states. Second, that the principles applicable to relevant plasma problems could be illustrated by a quarterly, computer-assisted forecasting model for the U.S. economy which EIR could produce, with cooperation from FEF scientists. The present author supplied the set of constraints to be used in transforming U.S. official data into the form needed to produce such forecasts. However, it must be recognized by all concerned, that the measurements to be made in connection with that modelling, must be interpreted from the standpoint of the implications of Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation, “Über die Hypothesen, welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen,” Riemanns Werke, pp. 272-287. Hence “LaRouche-Riemann Model.” That latter name was used for the most successful of any published quarterly forecast reports for the U.S. economy, from late 1979 through the Third Quarter of 1983. As I informed a nationwide TV audience during early 1984, the forecasting was dropped at the close of 1983, because of the wildly fraudulent, “cosmetic” statistical practices of the U.S. Government and Federal Reserve System, introduced during the closing period of 1983. The crucial issue there, “linearization in the very small,” is also the crucial issue in this present report. See below. [back to text for fn_7]

[fn_8]. LaRouche, op. cit. Also, Anton Chaitkin,Treason in America, New Benjamin Franklin House, New York, N.Y., 1984. [back to text for fn_8]

[fn_9]. There is no true art, in any form, without metaphor. Metaphor is not merely a required feature of all art; it is the common, principal subject-matter of the entirety of any and all works of art. “Classical” is rightly employed as a term derived from reference to ancient, Classical Greece, in the latter’s role as the origin of all of European civilization’s post-Archaic art-forms, to the present date. We are obliged to employ the qualifying term, “Classical art,” because of a misguided, widespread opinion, the latter which includes works violating the Classical principle of metaphor under the rubric “art.” [back to text for fn_9]

[fn_10]. “Über die Hypothesen, welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen”, op. cit. [back to text for fn_10]

[fn_11]. On “Analysis Situs”: various locations. [back to text for fn_11]

[fn_12]. Riemanns Werke, pp. 509-538. [back to text for fn_12]

[fn_13]. In the Carl Friedrich Gauss Werke (Hildesheim, Georg Olms Verlag, New York, 1981), the relevant Gauss writings, as known to Bernhard Riemann during the 1850s, are to be found as follows: biquadratic residues: Vol. II, pp. 65-148; curved surfaces: Vol. IV, pp. 188-334; on the influence upon Riemann exerted by Gauss’s work on hypergeometric series, see Riemann’s “Vorlesungen über die hypergeometrische Reihe”, Riemanns Werke, pp. 69-108. Compare the latter paper of Riemann with Gauss’s diagrams, and the commentator’s associated text, as presented on pages 102-104 of Ludwig Schlesinger’s Über Gausses Arbeiten zur Funktiontheorie [Gauss Werke, Vol. X]. [back to text for fn_13]

[fn_14]. ibid. [back to text for fn_14]

[fn_15]. To qualify the use of Leibniz’s term, Analysis Situs, here: The writer’s discoveries of the 1948-1951 phase of his project of refuting Wiener, et al., defined “Analysis Situs” as follows. In examining the way in which mankind’s continued existence depends upon successful interaction with the universe at large, scientific method must proceed from recognition that the evidence to be considered touches three distinct qualities of function, as these are expressed in terms of three distinct qualities of specific forms of empirical evidence. The specific forms of empirical evidence are assorted among: 1) Relations which are knowable directly through sense-perception: Macrophysics, 2) Relations in the very large, which can not be observed directly through the senses, Astrophysics, 3.) and, relations in the very small, which lie totally beyond the reach of direct activity of the senses, Microphysics. The functional distinctions, encountered in all three of the foregoing forms, are: A.) particular processes which are ostensibly non-living in themselves, including non-living organic processes; B.) particular processes which are ostensibly living; C.) cognitive processes. Thus, Analysis Situs pertains to all possible, functionally significant permutations among the nine “cells” defined by this three-by-three array. Ultimately, Analysis Situs is the notion that a single ordering-principle implicitly subsumes the ordering of all those permutations. This higher ordering-principle is equivalent to Plato’s notion variously identified as “Becoming,” or “hypothesizing the higher hypothesis.” [back to text for fn_15]

[fn_16]. As indicated by Riemann, in his referenced, 1854 habilitation dissertation, we can not derive the metrical characteristics of physical space-time merely from the dimensionality of the manifold. We must also consider the non-linear colligation among the physical principles represented by these dimensions. In other words, we must measure, experimentally, the metrical characteristics of the actual physical space-time representation by the manifold. The methods employed for this purpose by Carl Gauss, as in adducing the orbit of the asteroid Ceres, exemplify the conceptual approach required. [back to text for fn_16]

[fn_17]. It was also established by these Greek mathematicians and astronomers, long before the frauds of the hoaxster Claudius Ptolemy, that the Earth orbitted the Sun. [back to text for fn_17]

[fn_18]. e.g., angular differences between successive plumb-bob lines of the series of sundials. [back to text for fn_18]

[fn_19]. e.g., in first estimate, the radius is assumed to correspond to the plumb-bob line: were the Earth a sphere, and could one assume that the gravitational “forces” to be considered were, for practical purposes, those assumed by Isaac Newton’s crude notions. [back to text for fn_19]

[fn_20]. In the case that the curvature within an very small interval of continuing (but, not necessarily “continuous”) action, is non-constant, we are approaching the transition from the curvature of conic sections into the domain of hypergeometric, modular cases of “compounded,” non-constant curvatures. For a simple example, the product of a cycloid and a conic section. This is a crucial, relevant point, addressed below. [back to text for fn_20]

[fn_21]. In referring to “Wiener’s hoax,” we are not attacking his useful outline of principles of design of automatic control systems; his hoax was his act of sleight-of-hand, in claiming that all human knowledge could be reduced to the mechanistic terms of such automatic control systems. This was the same blunder made by Wiener’s fellow-Russell acolyte, John von Neumann, both in advancing his 1938 claims to have discovered the secret of all economy in “systems analysis,” and his later emulation of Wiener’s “information theory” hoax, in defending the delusion of “artificial intelligence.” [back to text for fn_21]

[fn_22]. As I have identified the definition of economic anti-entropy above. [back to text for fn_22]

[fn_23]. If one wished to insist upon the strictest term, the choice would be “Leibniz-LaRouche-Riemann Method.” On the basis of internal features of his work, Riemann was as wholly indebted to an adolescent grounding in Leibniz as I was. It was that commonality of grounding which led us, along different tracks of investigation, to converging conclusions, respecting the notion of a physical geometry, as distinct from a merely formal one. [back to text for fn_23]

[fn_24]. Executive Intelligence Review, Oct. 11, 1996. Later republished in Fidelio, Winter 1996. [back to text for fn_24]

[fn_25]. Which has an important relationship to the work of Heraclitus, but no principled congruence with the so-called “dialectical method” of Immanuel Kant, G.W.F. Hegel, or Karl Marx. Kant and Hegel are followers of the anti-Plato, reductionist, Aristotelean dialectic, and Marx is in the same genre. [back to text for fn_25]

[fn_26]. The institution of the Papacy had been wrecked by the Fourteenth Century “New Dark Age” and its aftermath. Theologian Cusa, who had been a member of the so-called Conciliar movement, through his writing on the principles of the modern nation-state, Concordantia Catholica, was self-persuaded by this very line of argument that the Christian Church must be reunited around a common principle represented by a single, common spokesman. This led to the reestablishment of the formerly shattered Catholic Church itself, through the initial successes of the Council of Florence. Cusa had aimed to bring the eastern and Latin rites together in reconciliation, around agreement to the so-called “Filioque” principle of the Augustinian reading of the Nicene Creed. Through his scholarly work in Byzantine centers, Cusa turned up Byzantine documents which proved to leaders of the eastern Rite, that Byzantium, according to its own documents, had been in error in opposing the Augustinian doctrine. The result was the temporary reunification of the eastern and Latin rites effected during the 1439-1440 sessions of the great ecumenical Council of Florence. In this process, Cusa’s work in Greek scientific manuscripts (many among which had been lost to the west since the 1350 death of the Hohenstaufen Emperor Frederick II), led to his formulation of the principles of modern experimental physical science. [back to text for fn_26]

[fn_27]. To relieve some readers of the mistaken apprehension that I have overlooked certain relevant mathematical matters: I have shown elsewhere, repeatedly, that the commonly taught (and credulously believed) dictum, that the discovery of the “transcendental” character of pi was due to the successive work of Leonhard Euler, Lambert, Hermite, and Lindemann, is a myth built upon a series of frauds, beginning with Leonhard Euler’s defense of Dr. Samuel Clarke’s argument on this account. [back to text for fn_27]

[fn_28]. In reality, it is easily shown, by references to complexities of compounded orbits, that the cycloid approximates, but is not actually representative of an isochronic principle. The actual isochronic curvature brings us immediately into the domain of the catenary. [back to text for fn_28]

[fn_29]. i.e., epistemology. [back to text for fn_29]

[fn_30]. William H. Donahue, trans., Johannes Kepler: New Astronomy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992. [back to text for fn_30]

[fn_31]. Cf. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.,The Science of Christian Economy, Schiller Instiute, Washington, D.C., 1991, pp. 374-377, 470-473. [back to text for fn_31]

[fn_32]. Hobbes was educated in mathematics by the personal lackey, Galileo Galilei, of the Ockhamite nominalist, the de facto post-1582 ruler of Venice, Paolo Sarpi. Sarpi, whose leading allies in England at that time, featured the Cecil family, and, therefore, Francis Bacon, was the actual teacher whose notions of physics were faithfully copied and presented by Galileo. Hobbes, a very, very intimate associate of Francis Bacon, applied the mechanistic misconceptions of causality which he had learned from Galileo, to social processes. This produced the mechanistic, “statistical gas theory” view of social process made infamous by Hobbes’ assertion of “each in war against all.” The coupling of this mechanistic notion with the method which Descartes, another Sarpi network asset, employed in plagiarizing what is known as “Cartesian geometry,” is the axiomatic basis upon which depend the notion of linearization through infinite series later defended by Dr. Samuel Clarke and Leonhard Euler, and the introduction of the “limit theorem” by Augustin Cauchy, et al., in their fanatical attacks upon the work of Gottfried Leibniz. [back to text for fn_32]

[fn_33]. Although the 1876 U.S. was the most advanced, and most powerful nation-state economy of the world, in totality, and per capita of labor force, the most powerful political and financial agency of the world was the British Empire and its London-centered Anglo-Dutch international financial oligarchy. In per capita values, the United Kingdom of 1876 was vastly inferior to the U.S.A., to say nothing of the basis of London’s power, in the misery imposed upon its imperial and other victims abroad. But for the treasonous elements, such as the House of Morgan and the August Belmont influence, serving as British agents inside the U.S.A., London could not have succeeded in creating, “George Soros” style, the financial crisis of 1873, nor in corrupting a sufficient number of members of the U.S. Congress to pass the Specie Resumption Act and related “British gold standard” measures which kept the U.S. in chronic financially-induced economic depression-cycles during the 1877-1907 interval. [back to text for fn_33]

[fn_34]. Under heavy pressure from the pro-“systems analysis” forces within the U.S. “establishment,” the U.S. government introduced heavy cut-backs into the U.S. aerospace program, beginning 1966-1967. U.S. aerospace progress since 1967-1969, has been chiefly, overall, coasting downhill, presently nearing absolute bottom. [back to text for fn_34]

[fn_35]35. Even in the educational programs which have gone from bad to worse in this century’s evolution of U.S. secondary and higher education, a similar benefit may occur through the personal initiative of an egregious student who rejects the generally accepted classroom and textbook methods of those institutions, and prefers to work through rediscoveries of principle independently, by some approximation of the same Four-Step method. In such a case, as experience of education during the recent five decades typifies, the result is that most of the graduates will learn to sing for their supper (a paid career), not for the benefit of music (science); a dwindling handful will be committed to truthfulness in knowledge. [back to text for fn_35]

LAROUCHE PAC CLASS

Lyndon LaRouche’s Unique Contribution To the Science of Universal History

by William F. Wertz, Jr.

EIRNS/Rachel Douglas

Lyndon LaRouche lectures at P.G. Kuznetov’s “President” program, held at the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, April 28, 1994.

---------------------------------------------

The following is an edited transcription of a class delivered by the author to a LaRouche PAC audience in New York City on May 11, 2019.

The title of this series of classes is “Earth’s Last 50 Years and Earth’s Next 50 Years.” The great scientist, theologian, Nicholas of Cusa said that when you rise to the level of creative reason, you are actually in timeless time. What I will be trying to demonstrate today is that Lyndon LaRouche was such an individual, who rose to a level of creative reason, and therefore operated, in his time, to influence certainly the next 50 years. But he did so from the standpoint of what is often called “the simultaneity of eternity,” or timeless time.

One of his greatest contributions, in my mind, is his conception of history, because if you want to know exactly how to shape the future, you have to have a conception of the principles which define not only past history, but the future. Lyndon LaRouche has made a unique contribution to resolving this question.

History as Science

One of the writings in which he addresses this is an essay which he wrote in prison. It’s entitled, “History as Science”; it was first published February 8, 1993, when he was in prison. I find this writing, and a number of other writings that he devoted to this subject, to be absolutely extraordinary; because he uniquely develops the actual metric, the criterion which you need to be able to judge history. It’s very important, as I said, that this be done, because there are a lot of historians out there who, in fact, are not concerned about understanding from the standpoint that LaRouche does; which is to understand it from the standpoint of humanity and humanity’s progress.

Many of these historians are actually the representatives of an imperial point of view, and their entire operation is to try to prevent the development of republics throughout the world and to preserve empire. As you’ll see through the course of this class, the current one empire in the world is not America, is not China, is not Russia; but it is the continuation of the British Empire, or what is better known as the Anglo-Dutch imperial liberal system.

Now, in this work—“History as Science”—what Lyndon LaRouche wrote is as follows:

Unfortunately, the study of a recognizable subject called “history,” is virtually outlawed by the “politically correct” classroom of today. Yet, even had history not been expelled so, the history textbooks supplied during the 1920’s through the 1960’s were tendentiously misleading concoctions, typified by Charles Beard, Arnold Toynbee, or Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope. From such sources, or such lower extremes as Francis Fukuyama’s banal exercise in Lockean utopianism, his End of History, very little of use is to be learned for dealing with today’s real history.

Again, I would really stress, history is something which is made, as you’ll see from the course of this presentation. What Lyndon LaRouche did is he developed a mission to shape history and to give it the positive outcome which it requires on behalf of humanity.

Four Cited Historians

Now what I want to do is just mention these four historians which Lyndon LaRouche just cited.

Charles A. Beard in 1917.

---------------------------------------------

First of all, let’s start with Charles Beard. Charles Beard wrote something called An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States in 1913. What he wrote there is:

[The members of the Philadelphia convention were] immediately, directly, and personally interested in, and derived economic advantages from, the establishment of the new [Constitutional] system. . . .

It cannot be said, therefore, that the members of the Convention were “disinterested.” On the contrary, we are forced to accept the profoundly significant conclusion that they knew through their personal experiences in economic affairs the precise results which the new government that they were setting up was designed to attain.

So, we are led by Charles Beard to believe that the Founding Fathers merely were interested in their personal economic interests; as opposed to the conceptions which are put forward in the Declaration of Independence in terms of the inalienable rights of man to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” That’s a principle which is applicable to this day throughout the world. In fact, when she founded the Schiller Institute back in 1984, Helga Zepp-LaRouche authored a declaration of independence for all of humanity by merely altering some of the language of the Declaration of Independence of the United States to apply to all peoples and all nations of the world.

We are to believe, according to Charles Beard, that they were just interested in their personal economic well-being when they wrote the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, including the principle of promoting the General Welfare. Where did that come from? Certainly not just from personal economic interest. This is a completely empiricist conception of human behavior; it reduces humanity to the condition of a beast where all that people are interested in is achieving pleasure and avoiding pain. This is a typical British epistemological conception of history.

The second example I’m going to give you is Arnold Toynbee. Who is Arnold Toynbee? Arnold Toynbee was a British historian who in World War I was recruited by the British Empire to head up British foreign intelligence. So you have to ask yourself, why would that be the case that an historian is brought in to head up British intelligence? What he did was, he wrote something called A Study of History, which was a 12-volume study on the development and decay of 19 world civilizations. That may give you an idea of why he was brought in by the British Empire to head up foreign intelligence. In a certain sense, he was the successor to Gibbon, who wrote the book on The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire.

What the British Empire and its lackeys are committed to, is finding ways in which you can preserve an imperial system by studying how other imperial systems rose and then collapsed, such as the Roman Empire. This is a complete pre-occupation of the British. How do we prevent the British Empire from suffering the same consequences as the Roman Empire or these other 18 civilizations?

CC/Atyyahesir

Arnold J. Toynbee

---------------------------------------------

Toynbee

What I’m going to read to you is a quote from his A Study of History, which discusses the process of disintegration of an empire or of a civilization. This, of course, is what they want to avoid; but this is the basic idea:

The schism is itself a product of two negative movements, each of which is inspired by an evil passion. First the Dominant Minority attempts to hold force—against all right and reason—a position of inherited privilege which it has ceased to merit; and then the Proletariat repays injustice with resentment, fear with hate, and violence with violence when it executes its acts of secession. Yet the whole movement ends in positive acts of creation—and this on the part of all the actors in the tragedy of disintegration. The Dominant Minority creates a universal state, the Internal Proletariat a universal church, and the External Proletariat a bevy of barbarian war-bands.

The basic idea is, think about the Roman Empire. In a certain sense, what he’s describing is the attempt on the part of a dominant minority to hold onto its power after having made fatal mistakes. And then what you have is the emergence of the internal proletariat which creates a universal church—think of Christianity; and an external proletariat which becomes barbarian war-bands. Let me continue:

These three achievements are, no doubt, extremely unequal in the respective degrees of the creativity that they manifest. We have noticed . . . that the universal church, alone of the three, has a prospect in the Future as well as a footing in the Past, while the universal state and the war-bands belong to the Past exclusively. And it hardly needs to be pointed out that, of the two backward-looking institutions, the barbarian war-bands are poor affairs indeed compared with the universal state. By creating a universal state, the Dominant Minority performs the worthy feat of checking, for a time, the process of social disintegration which its own past action has precipitated, and thus enabling the temporarily reprieved society to enjoy a brief “Indian Summer.” In creating barbarian war-bands, the External Proletariat has merely sharpened its predatory beak and claws in preparation for a carrion-crow’s feast upon a dead civilization’s carcass.

Rather graphic; and that, of course, is what the British Empire is afraid will happen to it.

Now, in 1939, Toynbee wrote, “The challenge of being called upon to create a political world order, the framework for an economic world order, now confronts our modern Western society.” He lived until 1975. The basic idea here is that Toynbee’s thesis is that a civilization, an empire, is confronted with a challenge, and it must find a creative solution if it is to survive. But what he means by creative is not what Lyndon LaRouche—as you will see—means by creative.

Mankind’s Creative Nature

Lyndon LaRouche identifies the creativity as the actual nature of man, and as that which must be fostered if human society as a whole is to avoid collapse and is to progress. What Toynbee means is that the empire does not have to promote the creativity of the population as a whole, but rather has to generate gimmicks which allow the imperial elites to sustain their power over the rest of humanity. That is this fundamental distinction.

As you will see, throughout history, this is what the British Empire has attempted to do. For instance, we will see that, confronted with the development of Eurasia at the end of the 1800s, following Lincoln’s promotion of the Transcontinental Railroad in the United States, the British came up with a creative solution to maintain empire; which was promoting the Japanese to carry out warfare against China and Russia, and finally, the First World War. They also, after the First World War, came up with the Versailles Treaty.

Think about after World War II, how did they preserve the British Empire? Well, one of the things they did was to create the British Commonwealth. And they moved after Roosevelt’s death to try to establish through Truman and others, control over the United States of America. That’s what they mean by creative; it has nothing to do with fostering the creativity of mankind as a whole, which is the essential quality of what’s required.

Carroll Quigley in 1970.

---------------------------------------------

Quigley

Then we look at Carroll Quigley. Carroll Quigley was a professor at Georgetown University, who had a very famous student by the name of Bill Clinton. I’ve read that Bill Clinton actually got a “B” as a grade under Carroll Quigley. He wrote book called Tragedy and Hope. Let’s see what Quigley says:

There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the Radical right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other group, and frequently does so. I know of the operation of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of is instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies . . . but in general, my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.

So here we have Carroll Quigley and his book Tragedy and Hope, identifying an Anglophile network which could come under various names. He refers to it as the Round Table groups, the Milner group, and so forth and so on. But he actually endorses it, and he also misleads the reader by suggesting that it’s [only] been around for a generation. This is a long history in terms of the British Empire; it certainly goes back more than one generation. But again, here you have an alleged patriot—Carroll Quigley—teaching a previous President of the United States, Bill Clinton, about an Anglophile network which he actually agrees with in large part. He only disagrees in respect to particular policies.

Gobierno de Chile

Francis Fukuyama in 2015.

---------------------------------------------

Fukuyama

Then we have the final of the four, Francis Fukuyama, who wrote The End of History and the Last Man. So, what does he say?

What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such. . . . That is, the end of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.

In an article by him in the Guardian, April 3, 2007, “The History at the End of History, he wrote:”

The End of History was never linked to a specifically American model of social or political organization. . . . I believe that the European Union more accurately reflects what the world will look like at the end of history than the contemporary United States. The EU’s attempt to transcend sovereignty and traditional power politics by establishing a transnational rule of law is much more in line with a “post-historical” world than the Americans’ continuing belief in God, national sovereignty, and their military.

By the way, Fukuyama proudly announced that he voted for Barack Obama. So, he is not just a neo-conservative in his advocacy of a unipolar world, to say the least.

So, what do you have with these four examples? There are many more examples that could be cited, but these are the four that Lyndon LaRouche mentions in “History as Science,” and I think that they’re very useful to put forward. Because if you look at them, there is no principle involved in any of these other than the idea that man is motivated by his base interests—as in the case of Charles Beard—or the preservation of empire, or this idea of Western democracy as exemplified by the European Union, in which sovereignty is wiped out altogether.

So, the basic idea here is that this is the kind of material that is presented in our school system. Not only in the United States, but in many other places throughout the world; and not just in Western Europe or the United States or Great Britain, but throughout the rest of the world. That’s what is taught as history.

Lyndon LaRouche’s Concept of History

Let’s go to Lyndon LaRouche’s conception of history. In “History as Science,” what Lyndon LaRouche writes is as follows:

A rigorous definition of the term “history” begins with the fact, that the continued existence of our human species is governed by a principle which does not exist in any other species of life. Relative to its environment, every other form has a limited, apparently genetically predetermined range of capability for acting to increase, or even more, maintain the present potential population density of its own population. . . . The human species, alone, is capable of willful alternation of that characteristic behavior which we recognize as “culture.” An alteration to the successfully intended effect of producing a relatively superior culture, this is the intended effect of successive, sustainable increases in mankind’s potential population density.

Look at the graphic of “Human Population Growth.” What Lyndon LaRouche is laying out here is that the fundamental principle of history is the nature of man as distinct from a beast. And that what man has—and we’ll see this as we go through this—is the capability through his creative reason and his agape¯, or love for truth and for mankind, and for the Creator in whose image he is created; he has the capability of making hypotheses which allow for supersession of previous geometries of economic and other activity such that he can continue to increase his potential relative population density. What you see in this chart is a reflection of the unleashing of that creative capability and the growth of population density and related parameters; particularly after the period of the Council of Florence in 1439.

imago viva Dei

What Lyndon LaRouche continues to say in another article, which was also written in prison, “On the Subject of God,” this was written in July of 1992.

If we measure history by the standard of each person as imago viva Dei, we have a completely different notion of history in general than is taught in our foolish university textbooks and kindred places.

Thus, the development of the individual person’s ‘divine spark’ of potential for creative reason, imago viva Dei, is the essence of history and thus the measure of the immortal necessity earned by an individual mortal life.

So, that is the issue of history. That man is created imago viva Dei, that is, in the living image of the Creator—of God. It’s very important that you have the word viva—living; because man is not just some sort of passive image, but rather, he is a vital force. Vernadsky, for instance, the Russian scientist, discusses the fact that man, through his creativity, through his noetic willfulness, actually is a geological force. You could go further than that and say not just a geological force on Earth, but as an extraterrestrial geological force as well.

Know Your Enemy

Lyndon LaRouche, in 1982, about 11 years before he wrote “History as Science” while he was in prison, wrote something called The Toynbee Factor in British Grand Strategy. In the class last week, Dennis Small mentioned that this particular book was transmitted to López Portillo of Mexico, along with Operation Juárez and other writings as part of a package at that time. Lyndon LaRouche’s concern was to warn López Portillo and other world leaders and others who read this document, of what British grand strategy is; so as to combat it effectively and know what the alternative is. What he wrote there is:

We present universal history as a comprehensible process of those developments of knowledge and of social institutions which represent the republicans’ struggle to perfect the individual and society; a struggle against the evil forces of oligarchism typified during our early history by the British monarchy and the forces behind the 1815-1848 Holy Alliance.

The conflict of these ages has been the struggle of the forces of republicanism against the forces of oligarchism.

For the past 2,500 years and somewhat longer, the entirety of the conflict within Middle East and European civilizations’ development has been only one underlying issue. . . . For 2,000 years to date, the solely determining conflict within European civilization, including our 1776-1783 war with Britain, has been a struggle of the forces of Judeo-Christian republicanism against the law, the immorality, and the religious outlook associated with the Republic and Empire of Rome.

I want to go into further depth of this principle of imago viva Dei, and I have a few quotes from Lyndon LaRouche on this. Then after that, I’m going to go through what he describes as the three critical points of historical development going back to the 1300s or before, through to today, judged from this standpoint. So, what he writes in “History as Science” is as follows:

The Christian Platonist Method

Consider now, in review, several of the fundamental considerations distinguishing the Christian Platonist method:

1. Imago Dei: Man as a sovereign individuality in the image of the Creator. The person has this quality by virtue of nothing other than an inborn potential for a form of creative reason which imitates the Creator’s process of creation. . . .

2. Capax Dei: [That is, the capability of participating in God.] The individual, sovereign person participates in the work of the Creator by means of acts which are products of creative reason motivated by agapē [that is, love]. . . .

3. The ontological principle of change (e.g., a notion of the ontological transfinite) [which was developed by Cantor, the German scientist and mathematician]. . . .

4. The individual “soul,” and its characteristic activity of agapic creative reason, is the location of the true self-interest of each and all persons.

5. The proper business of society is the successful reproduction, development and useful employment of such sovereign individual souls, each according to his or her such true self-interest, and to an overall effect which may be fairly described as centered practically on the effect of generalized, continuing, unending scientific and technological progress.

Then he continues:

It is the combining of three features of our view of this matter, through which these issues of history are rendered . . . intelligible objects of creative reason.

A. Creative reason as the successful generation of axiomatic-revolutionary forms of change in the lattice-theorem form of ideas efficiently governing human practice in respect to the integrated whole of past, present, and future.

C. That knowledge is the effort to perfect the process of hypothesizing the higher hypothesis, by means of locating the corresponding development of one’s own powers for creative reason . . . in the view of one’s creative-reasoning self, as microcosm, in an efficiently reciprocal relationship with the macrocosm.

Mankind’s Mission

Now that last concept, it seems to me, embodies Lyndon LaRouche in particular. This idea that man is a microcosm and that what he does is, he acts on the macrocosm of past, present, and future of all mankind. This is the conception of the simultaneity of eternity. It’s a conception that man’s mission is to further the creative process of the Creator. If you look at Lyndon LaRouche, the thing that really stands out about this man, is that he devoted his entire life to develop within himself the knowledge and the capabilities which are required to act on the world as a whole. Another conception which he develops is that of the necessary predecessor and the necessary successor.

The fact of the matter is that throughout history there are certain creative developments which are breakthroughs which are made; those are the necessary predecessors. But man’s knowledge and his actions in the world don’t stop; they have to progress, and that’s the necessary successor. This is a lawful ordering which takes place. You can see this throughout history.

For instance, Nicholas of Cusa refutes Archimedes’ idea that you can square the circle. Then you have Kepler, based on Cusa, actually develops astronomy. Then you have Leibniz, based upon requirements put forward by Kepler, who develops the calculus. So, that’s just one example. You have similar examples of necessary predecessors and successors in terms of art, in terms of culture as well; music in particular.

But let me just say that there are three, in a certain sense, examples of conflicting world views which are seminal for what I’m developing today based on what Lyndon LaRouche’s conception of history is. Those are: Zeus versus Prometheus; Solon of Athens versus Lycurgus of Sparta; and Plato versus Aristotle.

Prometheus giving fire to man.

---------------------------------------------

If you go to most schools, you will hear that Aristotle was actually the student of Plato, and further realized Plato’s writings, which is the biggest lie that you can imagine. You will also hear certain religious circles argue that Prometheus was attacking God; he was rebelling against God. As if Zeus, a pagan god, is the Creator. It’s actually a blasphemy in religious terms to be putting forward such a conception.

But let’s look at these three.

Ancient Conflicts

In the case of Zeus and Prometheus, Prometheus acts out of love of mankind, to give mankind what he needs in order to further develop; that is fire, but not only fire. He gives him an internal fire which is the internal fire of creative reason. He basically teaches man how to think creatively. This is a challenge to the imperial system of Zeus. For that, Prometheus, in Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound, is tied to a rock allegedly for eternity, and he’s tortured. The rest of the trilogy was destroyed; undoubtedly by imperialists who didn’t want us to know exactly how Prometheus escaped this fate. But that’s the issue. Prometheus is acting on the basis of creative reason and agapē, as Lyndon LaRouche indicated.

If we go to Solon and Lycurgus, Friedrich Schiller—the German poet and historian—gave a lecture when he was a history professor at the University of Jena in Germany, on the legislation of Solon and Lycurgus. Lycurgus is an imperialist; he runs a slave-ocracy. So, you have helots or slaves who are doing all the work, and then you have the warrior class. His whole idea is, how do we preserve Sparta by not allowing the citizens of Sparta to have any access to trade, to industry? To not have any access to other cultures, so we can freeze it in time? That was the idea of Lycurgus.

Left: Lycurgus of Sparta; right: Solon of Athens

---------------------------------------------

On the other hand, Solon devoted his entire form of government to the intellectual progress of the population. Very interestingly, his first decree was to cancel all of the debts. Solon was an anti-monetarist; he was thoroughly committed to a conception of development of the creativity of the human population.

In terms of the third example, you’ve got Plato versus Aristotle. As I said, Aristotle was not a student of Plato. He opposed Plato on all fundamental issues. The fundamental issue which has relevance to what we’re talking about here, is that Plato developed the idea that there is creative reason or intellect, which is a higher form of the use of the mind than mere logical deduction or empiricism. Aristotle, on the other hand, limited all human mental activity to induction and deduction; that is, to come to conclusions based on empirical observations, and then to make deductions from the fixed logical categories which are derived from that empirical perception. That’s a way of enslaving people, by denying them creativity.

This is what the Roman Empire did under Diocletian, where you couldn’t have an occupation other than that which your great grandfather, your great, great, great grandfather had. You were frozen in time; no development of the mind.

Detail from Raphael’s The School of Athens, showing Plato (left) and Aristotle.

---------------------------------------------

Plato and Platonic Method

What Plato writes, which is very important, in a dialogue called the Philebus, is that what Prometheus did was to give mankind a method for thinking, not just fire. And the method was that everything is a combination of a many and a one. One combination is to impose a one on the many, or a limit on the unlimited. If you do that, then you have a collapse of a civilization, as in the case of Lycurgus’ Sparta, as in the case of every form of imperialism. Because every form of imperialism sees the development of the creative capabilities of the population as a threat to its power; therefore, they commit menticide. They stifle creativity.

The other combination of the one and the many is an unlimited succession of limits. This is what led to Cantor’s conception of the transfinite. You have a similar concept which was developed by Nicholas of Cusa in his refutation of Archimedes’ quadrature of the circle. That is, that circular action is of a higher order than polygonal action. So, if you were to inscribe and also circumscribe a circle with a polygon, you can multiply the number of linear sides, but it will never reach congruence with the circular action.

Polygonal action is of a lower species than circular action. In fact, it’s only from the higher standpoint of circular action that you can derive polygons. So, it has a higher causal element, an ontological element. Cantor says he finds his notion of the transfinite not only in Plato’s Philebus, but also in Nicholas of Cusa’s writings. Both conceptions are necessary predecessors of Cantor’s concept of the transfinite, as is Plato’s concept of higher hypotheses and hypothesizing the higher hypoethesis.

The point being, that in the realm of becoming, of creation, you must have a succession of higher order scientific breakthroughs and cultural breakthroughs which allow society to progress. If those don’t exist, then the society will collapse. No matter what gimmick Toynbee or Gibbon can come up with, it will collapse. This is what Lyndon LaRouche refers to as a transfinite ordering of progress of a necessary predecessor, necessary successor, if societies are to continue. This is also described as anti-entropy by Lyndon LaRouche. These three contrasts convey that. This is the essence of the fight not only throughout European civilization, but all of civilization, whether people know that or not.

Toward a Second Treaty of Westphalia

Let me go to the next two quotes. In “Toward a Second Treaty of Westphalia; the Coming Eurasia World,” what Lyndon LaRouche writes is:

The most efficient approach to that task [reaching a European-Eurasian treaty agreement based on principle] is to present the Asian intellectual leader with a shockingly clear statement on the interrelated subjects of monotheism and Promethean man.

In “History as Science,” Lyndon LaRouche is already addressing the issue of China, in 1993 while in prison. And he says that if they continue with their cheap labor policy, they will suffer a Dark Age. So, he was already proposing that they abandon that policy and go for what later became the Eurasian Land-Bridge, what today is the One Belt, One Road perspective. In there, he cites the writings of Leibniz which establish the affinity between Christian civilization and Confucian civilization. But very interestingly, which is in line with this quote on Promethean man and monotheism, what he stresses is that both pre-Christian Platonism and also Confucianism lack one thing. They lack this conception of imago viva Dei and capax Dei.

Europe and Asia

So, this is something which is important to stress, because of course, we’ve lost any understanding of this within Western Christian civilization, and knowledge of that may not actually have existed, and may still not be known in Asian cultures. So, it’s something very fundamental, because what Lyndon LaRouche is saying is that this is the fundamental issue of all history; and it’s the fundamental issue as to whether you’re going to have a Eurasian-European treaty agreement which is based upon principle, which is what you need if it’s going to be durable. Of course, with all of the friction that we have today, this is especially important.

He continues to say, in “Toward a Second Treaty of Westphalia”:

The entirety of the principal conflicts within European history from approximately 600 B.C. must be understood as the continuation of the conflict between the republicanism of Solon of Athens and the oligarchism of the sodomy-ridden slave society of Lycurgan Sparta. Only if the United States’ wars against Britain are examined against the background of the conflicts between republican Athens and oligarchical Sparta, is it readily possible to understand the profound premises for the 1823 Monroe Doctrine.

And I’ll come back to that at the very end.

In another writing called, “Economics as History,” which was written in September of 2009, Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

Europe-Mediterranean-based monetarist systems have been operating since the time of the Peloponnesian War.

Throughout the entire period since about the time of the Peloponnesian War of B.C. 431-404, first, Mediterranean, and later, European cultures have been dominated by Mediterranean types of monetary imperialist systems. This includes the Roman Empire, Byzantium, the post-A.D. 1000 Venetian-centered system of feudal forms of monetary power, through the Fourteenth-century New Dark Age.

CC/Il Sistemone

Statue of Dante Alighieri in Naples, Italy.

---------------------------------------------

Three Turning Points in Recent World History

Now going back to “History as Science,” Lyndon LaRouche identifies three critical turning points in recent world history. And this is what I want to emphasize at this point.

The first of these three critical points is the so-called “New Dark Age” of the post-Dante Alighieri, mid-fourteenth century Europe.

The second is the beginning of the post-medieval, modern history, that fifteenth-century “Golden Renaissance” pivoted upon the A.D. 1439-1440 Ecumenical Council of Florence.

The third, is the beginning of the march of this planet toward two “world wars” and now possibly the onset of a third—during the present century; a period inaugurated by the murder of British imperialism’s most efficient foe, U.S. President Abraham Lincoln.

OK, so what I want to do is just go through these three shifts in recent world history. First of all, as Lyndon LaRouche points out, what you had is a succession of imperial systems, the Roman Empire, Byzantium and then the Venetian Empire. For instance, if you look at the New Testament, what is the Babylonian system? It’s this kind of monetarist, imperial system. And so, you’re talking about the Mediterranean area and the European area. As he said, it’s been a fight against monetarist forms of imperialism, which have succeeded each other over this entire period of time.

And in this first period, of the so-called New Dark Age, what you had was the emergence of the Venetian system, which promoted the Crusades into the Middle East, and was a banking center which had policies of free trade, policies of usury and so forth.

Venice

And Venice became hegemonic around 1250 A.D., with the death of Friedrich II Hohenstaufen, who was Holy Roman Emperor at the time. This was a guy who spoke several languages, including Arabic, didn’t want to carry out a crusade against the Middle East—in fact, he was ordered by the Pope at one point to carry out a crusade. He became sick en route and came back. He was excommunicated for not carrying out the crusade. And then he finally carried out a crusade, and he walked into Jerusalem peacefully, because he had sent a letter, written in Arabic, to the Muslim leader, so it was not a typical Venetian-Norman crusade!

At any rate, these policies of Venice resulted after the mid-1300s, in a period of a Hundred Years War, which is called the New Dark Age, a period in which the population of Europe and adjacent areas was massively reduced as a result of the spread of the plague, and of course, they had no science, so they had no idea what caused the plague. They actually took measures which contributed to its further circulation.

And Dante, whom Lyn refers to, actually was one of the people in the forefront of fighting for a new paradigm at that point against the Venetians. He wrote a book called De Monarchia, in which he said that the purpose of government should be to stress intellectual growth. So again, the fundamental principle of imago viva Dei, as the opponent to imperialism. Dante wasn’t successful, at that point, but he contributed to this development of a republican form of government that emerged out of the Council of Florence much later.

And there were various groups that contributed to this development, including the Brothers of the Common Life, who were anti-Aristotelian and who educated young orphans by getting them to copy—because there was no printing as of yet—to copy manuscripts of important, fundamental treatises, so they could actually learn from the direct sources. And Nicholas of Cusa, for instance, is said to have studied under the Brothers of the Common Life.

An Ecumenical Concept

Then, what you have, going into 1439-40, which is the second phase, you have Joan of Arc, who was burned at the stake in 1431—why? Because she was fighting against the British and Normans, their Norman allies in northern France. And remember the Hundred Years War was between France and England, with England trying to take over France and saying that they had a greater right to run France than France. She was burned at the stake for fighting for what became the sovereign nation-state, with Louis XI. And that itself was a development which was shaped by Nicholas of Cusa, who wrote a book called Concordantia Catholica in 1433, which really laid the basis for the development of sovereign nation-state, and built on what Dante had done before.

Top: Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa; bottom left: King Louis XI of France; bottom right: King Henry VII of England.

---------------------------------------------

Cusa also wrote De Pace Fidei, which put forward an ecumenical concept based upon the principle of love, of agapē among different civilizations and cultures.

In contrast to today’s ideologues like Samuel Huntington, who called for a Clash of Civilizations, Nicholas of Cusa, all the way back then, was putting forward an ecumenical concept based on the fact that all of us have reason, imago viva Dei and agapē, love: That should be the basis for collaboration. As the Chinese advocate today with their “win-win” perspective. And then, of course On Learned Ignorance, which really launched the scientific revolution, which was necessary to get out of the New Dark Age, when they didn’t even know what had caused the Black Plague, among other things.

Then, you have the first nation-states, which as I said, were France under Louis XI, and then England with Henry VII. But as Lyndon LaRouche has written, the problem was that these sovereign nation-states did not become the hegemonic form of government throughout the world. You didn’t have a community of principle among sovereign nation-states throughout the world. Rather, you had imperialism still in power, and so these nation-states were not able to survive. So you had what Lyndon LaRouche has called a “symbiotic relationship” between the imperial system, which remained dominant, and the emergence of sovereign nation-states which is the future.

And unfortunately, this is the situation which still persists to this day, and our job, in a very real way, as defined by Lyndon LaRouche, is to create a family of sovereign nation-states throughout the world, as part of planetary culture, a New Paradigm, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche has called for repeatedly over an extended period of time. And part of this failure of the nation-state to become hegemonic was that the Venetians and the Habsburgs went on a total counteroffensive. Cusa’s collaborators, in a certain sense, tried to flank this.

The New World

They were the ones who sponsored and gave intellectual direction to Columbus’ rediscovery of the Western Hemisphere. The executors of the will of Cusa, Toscanelli and Ferdinand Martín, a bishop in Portugal, were the people who were in direct contact with Columbus before he finally got sponsorship for his voyage to the Western Hemisphere in 1492. And that was a flanking operation, to create the conditions under which you could have a new society emerge, distant from this Venetian/Habsburg-controlled European oligarchy.

The Swearing of the Oath of Ratification of the Treaty of Münster (Westphalia) by Gerard ter Borch, 1648.

---------------------------------------------

But unfortunately, at the same time, the Venetians were unleashing a religious war. Even as Spain sponsored Columbus’s trip, you had Torquemada and the Grand Inquisition expelling the Jews and Muslims from Spain. And you had religious warfare from about 1492 until the Treaty of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years’ War in Europe between Protestant and Catholic in 1648.

In this entire period—and this is very important to understand—Venice, which had been the imperial power over this entire period, was very vulnerable, located in Italy in the Adriatic area. So they moved northward. They moved to the Netherlands, and they moved to Britain in succession. And this starts in 1529, when a Venetian by the name of Francesco Zorzi was deployed to England to give sex advice to King Henry VIII. And this same Zorzi printed a book during this period, which explicitly attacked On Learned Ignorance by Nicholas of Cusa. It was called De Harmonia Mundi (On the Harmony of the World).

Then in 1600, you have the creation of the British East India Company—this is before the Thirty Years’ War—and in 1602, the creation of the Dutch East India Company. And then, even after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, in 1688 you had the Dutch Prince William of Orange invade Britain. So what you have is over a period of time, a relocation to Netherlands, and the consolidation of a British-Netherlands imperial system, which is essentially the Venetian Party. And actually, there was a party in England, called the Venetian Party. So this is quite explicit that this is a Venetian, Anglo-Dutch imperial system, which took root in Britain and the Netherlands.

East India Companies

This then resulted, in 1763, in the Treaty of Paris, after the Seven Years War, or in the American colonies called the French and Indian Wars, where the British Empire was formally established under the British East India Company. And it was against the British East India Company that we waged the American Revolution, contrary to Charles Beard. The tea that was thrown into the Boston Harbor was British East India Company tea—that’s where it came from.

This then gets into the development of the American System, and I will just say, as Lyndon LaRouche has said, the fundamental split in European civilization, and by extension all of the world, because after all, who ran India? The British East India Company. Who ran the Opium Wars against China? British East India Company. We have a common enemy, which is the British East India Company, which is the Anglo-Dutch imperial liberal system: That is the enemy in the world.

It’s not just that British intelligence, that Christopher Steele, and Richard Dearlove, and Robert Hannigan and Alexander Downer from Australia and the Five Eyes, were involved and are continuing to be involved in a coup against the President of the United States: This is a bigger, deeper issue, involving the Anglo-Dutch liberal system, and a mode of thinking, contrary to a republican, Judeo-Christian conception of thinking based on imago viva Dei and capax Dei. That is the fundamental issue, really, in human history, to this day.

American System economists Friedrich List (left) and Henry C. Carey

---------------------------------------------

The American System of Political Economy

So you had the development of the American System, which is a system of political economy under Alexander Hamilton. There were others, who continued with this tradition—Henry C. Carey, Friedrich List, a German who lived for a long time in Reading, Pennsylvania, before going back to Germany. These ideas took hold throughout the world, in opposition to Adam Smith, who was an agent of the British East India Company, and advocate of free trade as a way of forcing the underdevelopment, or lack of development and looting of less developed countries than Great Britain and the imperial system.

I’m not going to go into that in thorough depth at this point, but the basic point is on the emphasis on the productive powers of labor, which you see in Alexander Hamilton, and the opposition to the slave trade, which you see in Henry C. Carey, in particular.

And of course, Lincoln was in this tradition. In 1823, John Quincy Adams, whose mentor was Benjamin Franklin, and who was himself the mentor of Abraham Lincoln, put forward the Monroe Doctrine, and I’m going to come back to this, as I said, at the end. But the fundamental concept of the Monroe Doctrine is the community of principle among sovereign nation-states. And Lyndon LaRouche, our association, and probably only a very small number of people throughout the world actually understand what the true intent of the Monroe Doctrine is. And that that’s the actual concept of it: It is not an imperial argument.

Teddy Roosevelt developed the Roosevelt Corollary, which was in fact imperialistic, in 1904. But the original Monroe Doctrine was an extension of the idea of community of principle among sovereign nation-states, which is consonant with Nicholas of Cusa’s conception of De Pace Fidei, or On the Peace of Faith.

Now, OK, so let’s look at this period after Lincoln is assassinated. In this period, there were already moves towards a Eurasian Land-Bridge being advocated by Count Sergei Witte of Russia and Gabriel Hanotaux of France. This was already under way. You had the Trans-Siberian Railroad; this was modelled on Lincoln’s Transcontinental Railroad. What the British did was, they saw this as a complete threat, and they moved to prevent it.

Wikipedia Commons

The Trans-Siberian Railway in the 19th century.

---------------------------------------------

This is a good example of Toynbee’s creative solutions to a challenge. What happened? Well, the British Empire formed an alliance with Japan, which had earlier been revolutionized by the American System during the Meiji Restoration. But they formed an alliance with Japan, and Japan went to warfare against China and Russia in the late 1800s, and that continued into the 20th century.

Wash drawing by T. Dart Walker

The assassination of U.S. President William McKinley at the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York on September 6, 1901.

---------------------------------------------

British Empire

That was one thing that was done. You also had a number of assassinations. First you had the removal of Bismarck from power in Germany; then you had the assassination of William McKinley, and you had Teddy Roosevelt coming into office—he was McKinley’s Vice President. Then you got the Roosevelt corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which changed its nature all together. Then you had a shift from an alliance among the United States, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, China, into the first formation of the “special relationship” between the United States and the British Empire, our sworn enemy that we waged three wars against. Before the assassination of McKinley, you had the assassination of Sadi Carnot, the President of France.

What the British did was, they launched another Seven Years’ War, just like the French and Indian Wars, but this one was a World War. That’s what World War I was. And that’s what World War II was; World War II was an extension of the failed policies of the Versailles Treaty after World War I. This was all organized by the British.

Delegations signing the Treaty of Versailles in Paris, France on June 28, 1919.

---------------------------------------------

After all, it was the British and people like Prescott Bush who helped put Hitler in power in Germany. They thought he would march east against the then-Soviet Union. But when he marched west as well, then Churchill had to form an alliance with the United States to get out of the mess that he and others had created. During this overall period, you had ideologues like Halford Mackinder, who developed a geopolitical view of basically preventing the Eurasian Land-Bridge from ever occurring, by focussing on isolating and ruining Russia.

So, that gives you a sense of these three periods that Lyndon LaRouche discusses as really critical turning points in world history. As he says in an article entitled, “Can We Change the Universe?” which was written in 2001:

Every major war within European civilization since the 15th century, including the religious wars of the interval 1511-1648, has been an expression of the efforts of the oligarchical faction to stamp out the existence of the sovereign nation-state and the principles of economy associated with that nation-state model.

He then says, in “Economics as History,” written in 2009, I believe:

Every major war on this planet since 1865 has been an offshoot of the principal goal of the British Empire.

Of course, you can look as well at the Prometheus versus Zeus, Solon versus Lycurgus. You can look at Plato versus Aristotle. You can also look at Franklin Roosevelt versus Churchill, particularly as seen through the eyes of his son, Elliott Roosevelt in As He Saw It. The point that President Roosevelt made was, we are not fighting World War II in order to preserve the British Empire. We’re going to use American methods after the war to develop the rest of the world, as the United States had done during the 1930s and 1940s. That, however, was aborted with Roosevelt’s death. And what do you have that emerges after that?

You have the World Wildlife Fund, headed by whom? Headed by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and Prince Philip of the British Empire, just as a sort of a paradigm of this Anglo-Dutch liberal imperialist system that we’re plagued with today.

White House/Tia Dufour

U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton.

---------------------------------------------

The Anglo-Dutch System

Must Be Replaced

Now, the basic point here is that the enemy that all of humanity faces is, in fact, the Anglo-Dutch imperial liberal system; which is a monetarist system, which has to be replaced. It was with an awareness of that, based upon this “History as Science” that Lyndon LaRouche proposed the Four Powers agreement to create a New Bretton Woods to replace that monetarist system, and to ensure that we have a World Land-Bridge and also space exploration as the future of mankind over the next 50 years. In his book, Earth’s Next 50 Years, written in 2004, what Lyndon LaRouche writes is as follows:

The key to all understanding of the modern world history of more than three centuries to date, is the recognition of the essential, true fact, that the history of the world as a whole, since no later than the February 1763 triumph of Lord Shelburne’s British East India Company, has been shaped by the continued, actually globally imperial power of an Anglo-Dutch Liberal system. Yet most of the world today, foolishly, pretends, as if politely, not to notice this plainly visible fact—this veritable elephant standing and trumpeting, unnoticed, in the middle of the honeymoon couple’s bed—and its profound practical implications for every part of our world as a whole, still today.

The attempts to effect reforms such as cultural agreements, among nations today, will fail, assuredly and absolutely, however noble and impassioned the sentiment supporting such proposed reforms, until the pathological factor of the subsuming system, the system of financier-oligarchical imperial Anglo-Dutch Liberalism—the currently reigning “fishbowl mentality”—is excised from the institutions of world power.

The problem is not so much the sickness of any one nation, as the prevalent current agreement of all to share the disease.

Now, that is absolutely critical, because it’s so easy to focus on the shadows on the wall of the cave, when you try to say who the enemy is. You have to know who the enemy is, and you have to have a scientific, principled basis for judging who the enemy is that must be replaced if mankind is to realize its mission in the world. In the recent period, John Bolton, the National Security Advisor to President Trump, was on CNN being interviewed by Jake Tapper. This was March 3rd. Bolton said, “Look, in this administration, we are not afraid to use the phrase ‘Monroe Doctrine.’ This is a country in our hemisphere.”

John Bolton is not the only one who doesn’t understand the Monroe Doctrine, but his stupidity is unacceptable. Unfortunately (as our colleague Dennis Small noted in the last class) very few people outside of the association of Lyndon LaRouche and maybe a few Argentinians actually understand the actual content of the Monroe Doctrine.

The Theodore Roosevelt corollary reads as follows:

If a nation shows it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and decency in social and political matters, if it keeps order and pays its obligations [that’s critical; I don’t think he’d like Solon very much], it need fear no interference from the United States. Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, require intervention of some civilized nation.

Daguerrotype by Philip Haas

John Quincy Adams in 1843.

---------------------------------------------

The Real Monroe Doctrine

That is Theodore Roosevelt; and that is actually what John Bolton is referring to in his ignorance. But the actual concept of the Monroe Doctrine is quite different. As I said, it’s the concept of a community of principle among sovereign nation-states.

Lyndon LaRouche gave a speech on November 25, 1984, and he said as follows:

The only proper foreign-policy doctrine of the United States today, is a revival and expansion of Secretary of State John Quincy Adams’s formulation of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine.

Today, the Monroe Doctrine must be greatly expanded in scope, to include the republics of Europe, and also those nations aspiring to free themselves from the last vestiges of European colonialism in Africa and Asia.

It must be a pact of friendship and alliance among republics which are each fully equal in respect to their sovereignty in all matters of economic and political life. Among the ranks of its friends, the United States must never aspire to anything more than the status of first among equals.

Now of course, most people throughout the world conceive of the Monroe Doctrine as an imperialistic doctrine, because they associate it with the Teddy Roosevelt corollary. But the actual policy of the Monroe Doctrine is completely different, as you can see. Lyndon LaRouche, in 1984, was putting forward the Monroe Doctrine as the basis for a compact among nations for a New World Economic Order, in contrast to what people like Toynbee were looking towards in the post-World War II period. They were looking for a Keynesian monetarist new world economic order, as opposed to a New World Economic Order based upon human progress and American System methods.

So, Lyndon LaRouche is proposing that the Monroe Doctrine, in terms of John Quincy Adams’ actual conception, should be the basis for the New Bretton Woods; for cooperation among nations in respect to the World Land-Bridge, which today is embodied by the One Belt, One Road policy of China.

These conceptions, I think, are absolutely critical to the crisis that we face in the world today. In that sense, Lyndon LaRouche lives in the simultaneity of eternity; and he lives in timeless time. The issue is that we must do the same; we must operate on an understanding of world history as he developed it. If we do, then we have in our hands a solution to the current crisis. We can shape history; but you have to know what the principles are. I think Lyndon LaRouche developed those, and I hope that this gives you an idea of exactly what he contributed to universal history.